Indian Foreign Policy

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 02 May 2016 11:51

I agree with you, Philip.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 02 May 2016 20:30

Philip wrote:Who have traditionally been the most persuasive to have the Hurriyat in the p*ss talks,not just the Pakis,but the Yanquis! This has no doubt been the advice form the Yanquis who love to have leaders who are on their payroll. It looks like our foreign policy is yet again in danger of being outsourced,thansk to the Yanqui think-tank entities being allowed to set up shop in India.

This is also why we need to have talks with representatives of PoK, Sindh, Baloch regularly. Though ISI seems quite shadowy in managing policy think tanks in foren countries and other such things.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 10 May 2016 04:43

One of the major MEA initiatives should be to create some type of a free trade region in the IOR? Is there any such initiative? Modi was supposed to revive SAARC. We also need road/rail connectivity to Hanoi. Joint economic interests reinforce the security interest. Wake up India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 May 2016 10:27

Parrikar to visit Oman, UAE next week - Dinakar Peri, The Hindu

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar will leave for Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on May 18 on a five-day tour to deepen security and defence cooperation with a region which has traditionally been viewed only as politically important.

“While political ties with the region has been deepening over the years, security and defence cooperation were the missing pieces in the relationship. It had been low key,” Defence Ministry sources said on Friday.

As India’s strategic interests stretched to the Middle East and beyond, the thinking in India too had changed. One official explained: “The big thing that happened in the recent past is the evacuation of Indian nationals from Yemen under Operation Rahat. It gave a sense of what our forces have to face. Yemen made it very clear that we need to focus on structures and processes in these countries.”

First bilateral visit

Officials said that Mr. Parrikar’s trip to the UAE would be the first bilateral visit by an Indian Defence Minister and the idea was to take forward the understanding reached during Mr. Modi’s visit last year. “We could become a source of production of military products for the UAE,” an official said.

Oman is India’s strongest defence partner in the Gulf and both sides have extensive defence and security ties in place. Oman has been hosting Indian warships on anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 May 2016 01:52

G. Parthsarathy's take.
Not Only US, Strike Balance with Other Powers as Well

Those who suggest we should have a military alliance with the US should remember that it defines and dominates all military alliances it participates in. America has a propensity to often cosy up to China, leaving allies like Japan in the lurch. Moreover, Russia, which now views our relations with the US with some misgivings, could well change its policies, if we are perceived to be an American camp follower. We should never forget that the Russians have invariably stood by us and are still an important partner in vital areas like military supplies and nuclear energy. Historically, the Russians have never trusted the Chinese.

India should promote its interests by ensuring the security of its borders and fashioning a web of economic ties with all major powers and regions in the world. While ties with the US should and will receive primary attention, we should not let over-enthusiasm for these ties to undermine our relations with major powers like Russia, Japan, Germany, France and the UK. Dealing with China is going to be more complex and involve imaginative moves to manage and contain border tensions, while building up our own defences more imaginatively than in the past decade. Our most crucial advantage is that we are regarded as a benign non-threatening power across our Indian Ocean neighbourhood, to which we must devote our primary attention.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 May 2016 15:54

Iran, Qatar, U.S. on Modi’s next itinerary - The Hindu

With major Assembly elections out of the way, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will make a series of visits in the next few weeks, with the main stops being Iran, Qatar and the U.S., the External Affairs Ministry announced on Friday. He is expected to travel to Afghanistan before going to Qatar and the U.S. in June, sources confirmed to The Hindu .

On Sunday evening, Mr. Modi will leave for Tehran, where he will sign the trilateral India-Afghanistan-Iran transit trade agreement along with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

Game changer

“The trilateral agreement using Chabahar-Zahedan-Zaranj as a corridor will be a game changer for regional connectivity, especially for Afghanistan, to find an assured and reliable alternative access to India via sea. The route will also significantly enhance prospects for India’s connectivity with Afghanistan, Central Asia and beyond through synergies with other initiatives such as North South Transport Corridor,” MEA Joint Secretary Gopal Bagley said on Friday.

Sources said the outstanding issue of fixing the channel for India to repay approximately $6.5 billion to Iran for previous oil dues was also resolved, and was likely to be announced after the bilateral meetings between Mr. Modi and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Among the other agreements expected to be discussed are the one to develop the Chabahar port and the ongoing negotiations for the Farzad-B oilfields. “There is interest in the Indian public and private sector to invest in Chabahar FTZ, as also in railway projects in Iran,” Mr. Bagley said.

As part of his ongoing outreach to West Asia, which took him to the UAE last year and Saudi Arabia in April, Mr. Modi will follow up his visit to Iran on May 22-23 with a visit to Qatar on June 4 and 5 and meet the Emir of Qatar HH Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. Energy will be one of the key subjects of talks in Doha, with Qatar accounting for 65 per cent of India’s LNG imports last year.

As The Hindu had reported earlier, Mr. Modi was expected to travel to Afghanistan for the inauguration of the $300- million Salma Dam built by India in June, possibly before visiting Qatar.

Obama farewell

His last stop in June will be equally historic, as he travels to Washington for a “farewell” visit to the outgoing President, Barack Obama. Mr. Modi travelled to the U.S. in April, but hadn’t had a bilateral meeting with Mr. Obama. He will also be addressing a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress during the visit on June 7 and 8 and meet business leaders and CEOs, the MEA said.

Mr. Modi and Mr. Obama are expected to wrap up several pending agreements. Officials say the final details are still being negotiated for the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement that would help Indian and U.S. militaries access each others’ bases and key installations.

In addition, the first commercial nuclear deal between the two countries, which would seal the deal announced by the two leaders last January, could also be signed during the visit.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 21 May 2016 18:28

^^^ I was thinking that Oman would figure on that ME list. Maybe later then.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 24 May 2016 15:35

Tall Chabahar promises: But what we say and what we do is India's credibility gap - Indrani Bagchi, Economic Times

The Kaladan multimodal transit-transport system connecting India's northeastern states through Myanmar to its Sittwe port was intended to be a landmark project that would power India's links to the Asean region.Signed in 2008, the project was supposed to be completed by 2013. But it's unlikely to get anywhere for at least another few years largely because the Indian government estimate of the entire project was wildly inaccurate. The cost, starting out at Rs 535 crore in 2008, is now a massive Rs 2,904 crore. Not to speak of the impact on bilateral relations with Myanmar or even India's larger strategic outreach to the rest of Asia.

Over the last decade, as India has moved to becoming a more active international player, its foreign policy has been hobbled by New Delhi's inability to deliver on promises, or to see its initiatives through.{Very true} It means years later, subsequent governments have to jump through hoops just to maintain credibility . While the Modi government is working on laundry lists of achievements, it might be more instructive to judge themselves on things they get done rather than things they start, leaving it to others to make up for their delays.

The Chabahar port and connectivity project, for instance, has been a talking point for well over a decade. The first trilateral agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan was signed in 2003; Manmohan Singh signed another trilateral MoU in 2012. The first framework agreement however only happened when Nitin Gadkari travelled to Iran in 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed the final deal yesterday, to build and operate the port. India built the Zaranj-Delaram highway by 2009, but connecting to the port remained undone. So India's great dream of connecting to Central Asia through Iran is still in progress.

In September 2013, India and the US signed the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) through which the US would be building defence equipment in India. The first meeting was held only in September 2014. DRDO, the nodal agency, was hopelessly ill-equipped to handle this initiative so it ran cold. Now control of this project has moved, giving India and the US a chance to perhaps manufacture jet engines here. Basically, the gap between what we say and what we do is the India credibility gap.

The biggest example has been nuclear liability. Having secured a historic waiver for nuclear commerce by NSG in 2008, India scored a self-goal with an ill-designed liability law in 2010. Justified on moral grounds, it froze out foreign nuclear players leading the US to take the grouse to other aspects of the relationship. It also stopped nuclear supplies by Indian companies to domestic power plants. Five years later, India had to work out a new understanding with the US, complete administration arrangements (all hanging fire), reassure nuclear companies, ratify CSC after creating an insurance pool, getting NPCIL to buy cover, etc.Indian companies are considering bidding as nuclear suppliers after almost six years.

India has messed up Nepal in more ways than one. Just look at how we were supposed to build roads in the Terai to ease connectivity , prove we are as good as the Chinese. Years later, it turns out land availability was not checked, of the six phases only one has been completed, the contractor has actually abandoned the work. This government then went ahead and blockaded Nepal. New Delhi worries about growing anti-India pro-China sentiment in Nepal. Wonder why? India was one of Mahinda Rajapaksa's earliest supporters but somehow he was allowed to slip out of our sphere of influence and by 2013 India was staring at a security nightmare with the Colombo Port City project financed by China. India is the largest user of the Colombo Port but it can only do `damage control' now.

China is not India's only opposition in global non-proliferation regimes. As a result of the Indian decision to arrest two Italian marines for mistaking Kerala fishermen as Somalian pirates, and letting the case sit around without resolution, Italy has gone out of its way to ensure there were no India-EU summits after 2013 (until March 2016), blocked India's membership to the MTCR at the last moment, and is opposing India in the NSG as well. Much diplomatic capital has to be expended by this government to give everybody an honourable exit.

Indians will find ways to blame others for mess-ups. Or blame the lack of numbers in MEA. Maybe foreign policy practice should involve game theory . Or, Indian governments could concentrate on just getting things done. That could work

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 24 May 2016 15:39

Bulk of the screwups above seem to be UPA handiwork...

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 24 May 2016 15:46

Execution gap is very real. The situation is very similar to that faced by Indian Railways. Too many bombastic announcements in each railway budget year after year (including former NDA government as well). Current government took the bull by the horns and stopped new train announcements but focussed on completing already announced projects. Same with national highways to a larger extent. Similar focus on execution is needed for our international projects.

We do have some good things to show for. For example, some of the promised projects to Afghanistan have been completed against grave local challenges. The key is to be consistent everywhere.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2016 08:54

The following op-ed is in the context of Iran and India's agreement on the Chahbahar port. However, it discusses a gamut of issues from Syria through other West Asian countries to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, I am posting it here rather than in the Iran thread.

The takeaway from Tehran - Srinath Raghavan, The Hindu

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Iran marks a new beginning in bilateral relations and beyond. The centrepiece of the trip was the basket of agreements on the development of the Chabahar port and onward connectivity with Afghanistan. The government deserves praise for the manner in which various pieces of this were put in place. The ground was prepared by extensive interaction of key Ministries — External Affairs, Transport, Finance and Petroleum — with their Iranian counterparts to overcome persistent hurdles and ensure synergies. In consequence, we have a set of interlinked outcomes: a contract for the development and operation for 10 years of two terminals and five berths; the extension of credit lines of $500 million for the port and of Rs.3,000 crore for importing steel rails and implementation of the port; memorandums of understanding on provision of services by Indian Railways, including financing to the tune of $1.6 billion, for the Chabahar-Zahedan railway line — a line that is also part of the trilateral agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan on a transit and trade corridor.

Years in the making

To be sure, the real challenge for India is in delivery. If MoUs were an index of influence, New Delhi should have had a lot more of it. Still, the level of coordination within the government is noteworthy given that it has taken us nearly 13 years since the idea was first mooted. The proposal was mired in three sets of problems. The Finance Ministry initially applied the brakes on plans for development of the port, insisting that there had to be a certain assured return on investment for the project. The strategic import of the project, especially by way of providing access to Afghanistan, did not figure in their calculations. By the time the Ministry was persuaded of the need to press ahead, other complications had crept into the picture.

This brings us to the second problem: the United States’s sanctions on Iran. Although the Indian government claimed that it would not adhere to any unilateral sanctions, in practice it took a cautious tack. The danger of exposing Indian banks and companies to indirect American sanctions for dealing with Iranian entities bulked large in the government’s thinking. Interestingly, this view continued to hold sway in some sections of the government even after Iran began accumulating billions of rupees in a UCO Bank account owing to India’s inability to pay for energy imports in U.S. dollars. In fact, this period of Iranian isolation and dependence on India afforded us considerable leverage — both in pushing our exports to Iran and in pressing forward with Chabahar. But this opportunity was frittered away owing to the third, and arguably most important, problem.

This was the absence of a strategic view of Iran. Barring some exceptions, South Block regarded our ties with Iran as purely transactional, essentially a buyer-seller relationship centred on energy. To be sure, these were the years when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seemed determined to ensure that Iran would be unacceptable to much of the world. Then again, there is hardly a government in the region with clean hands. Indeed, there is something to be said for the symmetrical cynicism with which we have condemned terrorism in the joint statements with Saudi Arabia and Iran during Mr. Modi’s recent visits. But the fact remains that New Delhi did not squarely reckon with the upshots of a strategic relationship with Iran. For starters, we could have accessed eyes-and-ears on the Makran coast to monitor not only the Gwadar port being developed by the Chinese, but also Pakistani naval activity under the UN umbrella in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s strategic importance

Notwithstanding Mr. Modi’s references to Chabahar’s strategic location, it is still unclear that we have a sense of Iran’s strategic importance. For this we need to look behind and beyond the last decade.

The basic point is that Iran has always potentially been the most important power in the region. It has a unique geopolitical location owing to its reach in Central Asia and Caucasus as well as in West Asia and the Persian Gulf. Because of its geography, Iran was historically an important arena of great power jostling for influence. From the last decades of the 19th century to the mid-20th century, the British and Russian empires vied for influence in Iran and eventually settled for a condominium.

During the two world wars, Russia and British India jointly occupied Iran. By this time, Britain was also interested in the oilfields of southern Iran that were under joint Anglo-Iranian management. After the Second World War the U.S. supplanted Britain as Iran’s main external patron, forcing out the Soviets from the country in 1946 and overthrowing an elected nationalist leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, seven years later. Under the reinstated Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran became the stalwart U.S. ally in West Asia. In the early 1970s, following the British naval withdrawal from east of Suez, the Shah became the main upholder of American interests in the Persian Gulf.

After the revolution of 1979, of course, Iran became beyond the pale for the U.S. In the 1980s, the Americans and their Arab allies supported the Iraqi aggression on Iran. In the following decades, the U.S. sought to keep Iran out of all regional initiatives, including the Palestinian peace process and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Yet, paradoxically, America’s own regional policies ensured the resurrection of Iran’s relative power and influence. The wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 removed the strongest regional counterweight to Iran. During this period, Iran also began supporting dissident Palestinian groups such as Hamas as well as anti-Israel outfits like Hezbollah. The Israeli mauling of Lebanon in 2006 — with American approval — helped catapult Hezbollah to political dominance and the concomitant extension of Iranian influence in the country.

A dominant regional player

It was in this context that the Arab sheikhdoms grew anxious about Iran’s growing regional heft — its alleged quest for nuclear weapons being merely a symptom of this larger problem. Add to this their growing nervousness about the reliability of the U.S. in the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in Egypt. Instead of seeking a modus vivendi between the GCC countries and Iran, Saudi Arabia (and Qatar) sought to undercut Iran’s regional influence by upending Bashar al-Assad in Syria and more recently by intervening in Yemen. The outcomes of these moves have been nothing short of disastrous for the Arab states. The rise of the Islamic State apart, the disintegration of the region has empowered Iran by driving Iraq, Syria and Russia closer to it. The prognosis seems inevitable: Iranian hegemony in Iraq and what remains of Syria, as well as its political influence in Lebanon, Gaza and Bahrain. If India desires any influence in the region, it must prepare to navigate these tricky geopolitical shoals. Even as India maintains its equities with the Gulf countries and Israel, it will have to forge a more strategic relationship with Iran.

Mixing optimism with pragmatism

At the same time, New Delhi must avoid any facile assumption that Mr. Modi’s trip has already positioned us better vis-à-vis Pakistan or Afghanistan. Tehran has also reset its ties with Islamabad following a successful visit by President Hassan Rouhani. {One can't say a very successful visit. It was marred very ugly by the capture of the so-called Indian RAW agent and the accusation made by the COAS of Pakistan Army that Iran was indirectly supporting Indian activities against Pakistan. The Iranian President was visibly annoyed and gave it back. The Iran-Pakistan relationship, never on good terms, except for a brief period when the Shah was ruling and both countries were part of SEATO/CENTO, has gone down the hill since Ayatollah Khomeini's return and the coming to power simultaneously of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan. There have been several incidents where the two countries came to blows. The ill-treatment of Shias in Pakistan can never lead to good relationship between Pakistan and Iran and an increasingly Deobandi/Wahhabi Pakistan cannot stop massacring the Shia in its lands} Iran will look for opportunities for connectivity and trade opened up by the Chinese ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative. Chabahar is one of the several such avenues that it is currently exploring. Once the financial sanctions on Iran begin to ease properly, there is bound to be a spurt of European investment in the country.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it is clear that Iran does not share India’s opposition to any attempt at reaching out to the Taliban. With increasing turbulence in Iraq and Syria and the possibility of the Islamic State expanding into Afghanistan, Iran wants to keep its northern frontiers stable. Iran has worked in the past with the Taliban and will have no compunction about doing so now. It is worth noting that the Taliban supremo, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, was felled by a drone strike while travelling from Iran to Pakistan. So, while the trilateral transit agreement showcases cooperation among India, Iran and Afghanistan, it is unlikely to translate into effective political cooperation between them. India’s fundamental problems in Afghanistan persist: lack of strategic presence or leverage, and the absence of any regional partners. Hence, India will remain marginal to the evolving political situation in that country — unless we rethink our approach.

Mr. Modi’s trip, then, has given us another chance to craft a strategic relationship with Iran and to enhance India’s influence in West Asia. But New Delhi has its work cut out for it.

Srinath Raghavan is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 26 May 2016 10:20

Iran is cleverly de risking with marginal costs to itself and it's islamic and anti India stand will always dominate the political landscape. It will seek vastly disproportionate costs in according any preeminence to India and Indian interests. It will also leverage the CPEC and open itself to the chinese. It needs permanent oil markets to protect itself from amreki sanctions. Iran has sour crude and it has to sell at a discount to the light and sweet crude brent and other benchmarks. It's crude will never be among the market favorites. Reliance is one of the very few large refineries set up to handle sour crude from Iran.

we have just put our interests/assets in the chabahar port, infrastructure and rail connections, roadways, afghan and beyond ambitions captive to a potentially hostile entity. They can turn the tap on and off at will.

They cannot forget that they once ruled in India, however briefly it may have been under Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes and his successors, and the cultural memory of that marginal conquest along with the filthy islamic mentality of forever considering all once conquered lands as their personal property

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 26 May 2016 10:30

chetak wrote:Iran is cleverly de risking with marginal costs to itself and it's islamic and anti India stand will always dominate the political landscape. It will seek vastly disproportionate costs in according any preeminence to India and Indian interests. It will also leverage the CPEC and open itself to the chinese. It needs permanent oil markets to protect itself from amreki sanctions. Iran has sour crude and it has to sell at a discount to the light and sweet crude brent and other benchmarks. It's crude will never be among the market favorites. Reliance is one of the very few large refineries set up to handle sour crude from Iran.

we have just put our interests/assets in the chabahar port, infrastructure and rail connections, roadways, afghan and beyond ambitions captive to a potentially hostile entity. They can turn the tap on and off at will.

They cannot forget that they once ruled in India, however briefly it may have been under Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes and his successors, and the cultural memory of that marginal conquest along with the filthy islamic mentality of forever considering all once conquered lands as their personal property

If they need permanent markets, then surely they can see that turning off the tap at will, will not really work out for them, especially since they do not have a monopoly over Oil.

The point is that there is not other way of reaching Central Asia from India without going through countries which are outright hostile (Pak, China) or potentially hostile (Iran, Afghan, Turkey), unless we take the long circuitous route via Russia (from East or West).

I am not sure what alternatives we have at this point.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 May 2016 11:25

Char Bahar (CB) is a bold move and great initiative from the "Modi Foreign Office",not the MEA! The MEA dithered for a decade keeping Iran in the cold thanks to pressure from Uncle Sam.Nevertheless,no time has been lost once sanctions were lifted and Iran was readmitted into the comity of responsible nations-which it's always been,by Uncle Sam and co.

Now the entire effort at CB is to outflank Pak and gain much better access to Central Asia (CA) and Russia,in a two-way exchange.The CB and road/rail link into Afghanistan and CA does benefit these nations also. India firming up an agreement that will in the future-if an Iran-Indo pipeline is also laid undersea,leave Pak out and reduce logistics time in exchange of goods from Russia is bound to upset hidebound western entities some profoundly anti-Iranian.Neither will this endear the Sunni Wahaabi entities to us too. Nevertheless,India's ancient ties with Iran spanning thousands of years gives both nations the right to tell any critics "buzz off" politely.
Indo-Iranian interests converge very well with the CB accord.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 26 May 2016 17:05

ShauryaT wrote:One of the major MEA initiatives should be to create some type of a free trade region in the IOR? Is there any such initiative? Modi was supposed to revive SAARC. We also need road/rail connectivity to Hanoi. Joint economic interests reinforce the security interest. Wake up India.

Unlike its commonly portrayed Free Trade agreements are not a panacea. FTA are written by regional hegemon. If it wasn't so, then there would not be opposition to TTIP, RCEP. The Trans Atlantic trade partnership is so secretive, that you need to go to Washington to read the details and leave all electronic devices until they take you through to the reading room.

No special treaties are necessary to create free trade region. By nature, they evolve organically. While improving transport links would benefit the locals, the returns on investment are at best uncertain. Governments should not be funding this unless there is a military benefit. Private money should be doing this. Modi is doing his job to transform India into a bright bulb which will attract the SAARC moths.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 26 May 2016 17:22

This agreement can be executed in a win-win model for both India and Iran. It is true that Iran will gain a leverage (similar to what Bangladesh has) for giving transit rights to us. At least in the case of Bangladesh, we have counter leverage in terms of water treaties and our adherence to it so they cannot fleece us beyond a point. In today's ruthlessly capitalistic world, civilizational links, etc., carry little weight and it finally boils down to what leverage India has over Iran and what leverage Iran has over India. That cold math will determine whether Iran can take undue advantage of the transit rights it is giving to India.

Iran's leverage over India:

- Iran is the global religious leader of Shia muslims and India has a sizeable shia muslim population. Several shia muslim communities from Lucknow to Kashmir have their religious allegiance to Iran. In fact many muslim Kashmiri members of Indian army are shia muslims and they do not support Sunni Kashmiri militants that are pro-Pak.

- For India, the only economical land access to Afghanistan and Central Asian states would be through CB port / Iran.

- Without access through Iran, India does not have a game in Afghanistan the moment US forces withdraw. There is also no option to outflank Pukistan.

India's leverage over Iran:

- India is the fastest growing energy consumer in Asia and can become the largest importer of Iran oil and gas. Since the transport cost from Iran to India is the cheapest, India provides the largest and easiest target market for Iran.
- With China and US becoming more and more self sufficient in oil, India would be amongst the largest oil importers in a few years. India has the scale to tilt the balance in favor of Sunni Gulf countries if Iran pushes India to a corner.
- [This is little far fetched] India has one of the world's largest muslim populations and can throw its weight in the event of a musical chair for control of Mecca and Medina if and when KSA collapses.

India's focus needs to be make the relationship so much intertwined that if Iran tries to hurt India, it would end up hurting itself. That will ensure that both parties do their best to keep it a win-win. Improving bilateral trade, providing college admissions to Iran politician's children in India, improving medical tourism of Iranians to India, etc., can all be expedited and all of it has their own soft impact in bolstering the relationship.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 May 2016 16:24

PM Narendra Modi: Pakistan should completely stop support to terror to boost ties - PTI

Modi on Pakistan, China & the US

India-Pakistan ties can "truly scale great heights" if Pakistan removes the "self-imposed" obstacle of terrorism, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said as he asked Islamabad to play its part by putting a complete stop to any kind of support to terrorism - "whether state or non-state".

"In my view, our ties can truly scale great heights once Pakistan removes the self-imposed obstacle of terrorism in the path of our relationship.

"We are ready to take the first step, but the path to peace is a two-way street," Modi told the Wall Street Journal, in comments posted on its website on Friday.

He said he has always maintained that instead of fighting with each other, India and Pakistan should together fight against poverty.

"Naturally we expect Pakistan to play its part," he said.

"But, there can be no compromise on terrorism. It can only be stopped if all support to terrorism, whether state or non-state, is completely stopped.

"Pakistan's failure to take effective action in punishing the perpetrators of terror attacks limits the forward progress in our ties," said the Prime Minister.

Modi said his government's proactive agenda for a peaceful and prosperous neighbourhood began from the very first day of his government.

"I have said that the future that I wish for India is the future that I dream for my neighbours. My visit to Lahore was a clear projection of this belief," he said.

Ruling out a change in India's decades-old policy of non-alignment, Modi said that despite the border dispute, there have been no clashes with China, pointing out the "new way" in today's "interdependent world" unlike the last century.

"There is no reason to change India's non-alignment policy that is a legacy and has been in place. But this is true that today, unlike before, India is not standing in a corner. It is the world's largest democracy and fastest growing economy.

"We are acutely conscious of our responsibilities both in the region and internationally," he said.

Modi's significant comment on India's Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which many now also prefer to call as strategic autonomy, came in response to a question on China's assertiveness.

"The US is very keen on India, the rising power that India is, to be part of, if not an alliance, then at least a grouping that can stand up to some extent to China. Where do you see India taking a position on the global stage?" he was asked.

"We don't have any fighting with China today. We have a boundary dispute, but there is no tension or clashes. People-to-people contacts have increased. Trade has increased. Chinese investment in India has gone up. India's investment in China has grown," Modi said.

"Despite the border dispute, there haven't been any clashes. Not one bullet has been fired in 30 years," he said.

"So the general impression that exists, that's not the reality," Modi said on India's ties with China.

Modi appeared to be appreciative of China's Maritime Silk Road initiative.

"We feel that the world needs to hear more from China on this initiative, especially its intent and objective," he said.

With a 7,500 kilometre-long coastline, India has a natural and immediate interest in the developments in the Indo-Pacific region, he said, adding that India has excellent relationships with the littoral states of the Indian Ocean.

"India is a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region. We, therefore, watch very carefully any developments that have implications for peace and stability in this region," he noted.

Talking about India's ties with the US, Modi said many of the values between the two countries match.

"Our friendship has endured, be it a Republican government or a Democratic. It is true that Obama and I have a special friendship, a special wavelength," he said ahead of his travel to the US next month - his fourth visit to the country after becoming the Prime Minister.

"Beyond our bilateral relationship, whether it is global warming or terrorism, we have similar thoughts, so we work together.

"But India doesn't make its policies in reference to a third country. Nor should it," Modi said.

He said India and the US have enjoyed a warm relationship, regardless of whether America has a Republican or Democratic administration.

"During the last two years, President Obama and I have led the momentum; we are capturing the true strength and scale of our strategic, political and economic opportunities, and people to people ties. Our ties have gone beyond the Beltway and beyond South Block," he said.

"Our concerns and threats overlap. We have a growing partnership to address common global challenges viz. terrorism, cyber security and global warming. We also have a robust and growing defence cooperation. Our aim to go beyond a buyer-seller relationship towards a strong investment and manufacturing partnership," he added.

Modi said unlike the last century, when the world was divided into two camps, this is "Today, the whole world is interdependent.

"Even if you look at the relationship between China and the US, there are areas where they have substantial differences but there are also areas where they have worked closely.

"That's the new way," he said.

"If we want to ensure the success of this interdependent world, I think countries need to cooperate but at the same time we also need to ensure that there is a respect for international norms and international rules," he said.

Bhurishrava · Post by **Bhurishrava** » 04 Jun 2016 00:15

Turkey under Turdogan has been repeatedly making noise in favour of Pukistan. Turdogan has been working hard to form an Islamist international. Talks are underway for defence collaboration too.
While countires like Turkey go around throwing their weight around, India does not make statements in support of Russia, an old friend, when its plane is shot down.
Indian foreign policy has too much inertia and too inward looking. What a pity.

Bhurishrava · Post by **Bhurishrava** » 05 Jun 2016 15:06

http://quwa.org/2016/06/04/week-review- ... ies-climb/

Turkish-Pakistani defence ties climb

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jun 2016 12:06

Turkey? It has a new name now."Erdoganistan"!

No wonder it is rapidly further rampng up ties with old chum Pak.Both are experts in promoting terror.The Pakis the jihadis operating in the subcontinent,the Taliban in Af-Pak and export of their mercenaries.The Turks,ISIS and anti-Syrian "rebels". So an unholy alliance is being planned as Neo-Sultan Erdogan is feeling the heat of the Syrian conflict beneath his throne.

India should not let slip its recent deal with Iran on CB,etc. Iran is no friend of Turkey ,nor is it a pal of Pak because of Pak's indifference towards the attacks on its Shiites.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 06 Jun 2016 12:47

Is Pukistan proliferating missiles and Nukes of Cheeni design to Turkey. There is more to this Turkey courting Pukis than what we see.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jun 2016 17:26

I suggest everyone to read the complete text of RM Manohar Parrikar's speech at the latest Shangri La dialogue. It reiterates the following aspects of our foreign policy:

India's interests extend from the Suez to the Pacific shores, the Indo-Pacific.
We need a framework to manage security issues in Indo-Pacific (In fact, Ashton Carter used the same terminology in the same venue and said that such a framework would be inclusive and even invited China to be part of that. Modi also referred to that in his US speech. Obviously, they aren't traipzing around this idea, there is a definite evolving agreement leading probably to a NATO-like organization)
The contours of such a 'framework' are tucked away at the fag end of his speech, namely: to promote and maintain seamless connectivity stretching across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, to guarantee freedom of navigation, over-flight and unimpeded commerce in accordance with international law and to knit the people of the region together in peace and prosperity.
'Nationalistic rhetoric' is not the monopoly of a single country
The dispute in South China Sea (Indo-China Sea) is a matter of serious concern to India
India firmly requires 'freedom of navigation and overflight' in that area, no 'threat to use force' and resolution according to 'international law, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea'.
India is 'not only committed to safeguard India’s land & maritime territories and interests, but will also make its capacities available to other regional countries'.
The Indo-Pacific nations must collectively face the security challenges
The interest of non-Asian countries in security of Indo-Pacific cannot be ignored (This clearly legitimizes US involvement).
By claiming Shangri La dialogue as 'Asia’s premier forum on defence and regional security issues', he ticks off the emerging China-sponsored CICA.

sivab · Post by **sivab** » 16 Jun 2016 19:52

https://twitter.com/airdefencenews/stat ... 8207362048

AIR Defence Alerts ‏@airdefencenews 18m18 minutes ago
#Namibia invites #Indian companies to directly mine #uranium from the country.

member_28442 · Post by **member_28442** » 16 Jun 2016 20:29

great news if true

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 17 Jun 2016 04:35

I wonder which mining firms will take up this opportunity- state or private.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 17 Jun 2016 09:17

PM Modi hosting Thai PM today in Delhi.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 18 Jun 2016 07:10

India to export missile systems to 'certain' friendly nations: Manohar Parrikar - PTI

Government has decided in principle to allow export of missile systems to 'certain' countries who have friendly relationship with India, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said on Friday.

"The government had taken a very conscious decision about 4-5 months ago that 10 per cent of the missile capacity will be permitted to be exported if producers manage to get export orders subject to parameters set by the Union government and external affairs ministry," he told reporters here.

Policy of export was always existing earlier, but the problem was lack of spare capacity after meeting requirement of the country's armed forces, he said, adding that the production capacity for various missile systems like ' Akash ' had been been improved now.

"In-principle decision has been taken to allow exports to certain countries who are in friendly relationship with us... if they manage to export, then we would enhance the capacity by 10 per cent so that the forces are not deprived," he said.

Parrikar, here [Bengaluru] for the inaugural flight of indigenous basic trainer aircraft Hindustan Turbo Trainer-40 (HTT-40), was responding to a question on export policy.

On possible export of BrahMos missiles to Vietnam, which he had visited earlier this month, he said the southeast Asian country had expressed interest and a group would be set up to discuss about their requirement.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2016 15:58

AYUSH set to get international treatment - Kallol Bhattacherjee, The Hindu

Close on the heels of its international campaign to popularise yoga, the Ministry of External Affairs will send out groups of AYUSH experts to help set up departments of AYUSH in the leading universities of the member countries of the U.N. In line with the new scheme, the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and Indian missions abroad had reached out to foreign governments to host the AYUSH experts. The initiative found quick response from Iraq, Colombia and Reunion Island, which will soon be hosting AYUSH experts.

Teams to go abroad

“We will begin the project by sending three groups of AYUSH troops to Colombia, Reunion Island and Iraq this week and ultimately plan to send AYUSH experts to maximum number of member countries of the United Nations,” said Sanjay Vedi, Programme Director of ICCR, which handles cultural diplomacy under the MEA and has been instrumental in roping in 192 countries across the world for the International Day of Yoga, which will be celebrated on Tuesday. Apart from Iraq, Colombia and the Reunion Island, the first phase of the project will include twelve other countries. “Each group of experts will have teachers, practitioners and demonstrators, who will train a first generation of teachers and students of AYUSH in these countries” Mr Vedi said.

Screambowl · Post by **Screambowl** » 21 Jun 2016 16:27

Johann wrote:
RaviBg wrote:No western democracy allows any major act of terror to go unpunished.
I dont know what he means by punished.

What was the European response to the Arab state-sponsored terrorism (inextricably linked to domestic left wing terrorism) of the 1960s, 70s and 80s? For the most part a mix of stronger internal security measures, and a foreign policy appeasement to the Arabs.

What has been the response to jihadi terrorism, starting in France in the 1990s? More of the same for the most part.

UK, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands apart, most of the Europeans are unwilling to put themselves at serious risk even in Afghanistan.

US reaction to much of the Arab and Iranian terrorism of the 1970s and 1980s was similarly weak or non-existant.

What punishing reaction was there to the 1993 WTC bombing or even the 2000 attack on the Cole?

It will be naive to say that such kind of terrorism is not a proxy war. Every country uses these elements to safe gaurd their interests. But criminal is very costly and hence to be kept under check. This is what control on terrorism is all about.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2016 19:16

India’s Stakes in SCO - P.Stobdan, IDSA

What does SCO membership actually hold for India? Pursuing the goal of multi-polarity apart, are there direct potential gains for India?

For India, the SCO has been about increasing its political, economic and security stakes in Central Asia – a reason why New Delhi keenly pursued its formal entry into the grouping despite critics at home challenging the wisdom of joining a Chinese-led body as a junior member with a lesser political voice.

From India’s perspective, SCO membership would open a new opportunity to reconnect with Eurasia after a century of disruption. Prime Minister Modi said at the Ufa summit that membership of SCO would be “a natural extension of India’s ties with member countries.”

SCO could offer India with some unique opportunities to get constructively engaged with Eurasia to address shared security concerns, especially for combating terrorism and containing threats posed by ISIS and the Taliban.

SCO aims to focus on combating terrorism, separatism and extremism. The measures undertaken by the grouping may have served China’s fight against its ‘three evils’, as also effectively dealt with imminent threats being posed to the Central Asian states as well.

India could benefit from stepping up cooperation especially by tapping into the existing SCO processes such as the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) that shares key information and intelligence on movements of terrorists and drug-trafficking. Similarly, participation in the SCO’s counter-terror exercises and annually conducted military drills could benefit our armed forces understand the operational tactics of other militaries which could also instil greater confidence at the regional level.

More critically, a presence in the forum is essential to ensure that inimical forces do not manipulate the body to drum up anti-India stands in this critical region comprising of Muslim populated states.

Direct stakes are also in gaining information such as on drug-trafficking control, cyber security threats, public information, mass media, educational, environmental, disaster management and water related issues of Eurasia that we know little about.

It provides additional latitude for securing India’s energy interests – to invest in oilfields with an eye to get its way on the pipeline routes. SCO could also change the way for TAPI to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the viability of which has been threatened so far by a host of reasons.

Further, India would be able to seek mutually beneficial partnerships with SCO members in human capacity building, technology, education, health and policy convergence in regional trade and financial institutions. India could bring to the SCO its techno-economic expertise, markets and financial commitment.

India’s experience in dealing with multi-cultural settings is an attraction among many sections in Central Asia. India has evidently demonstrated its ability to render value addition in terms of contributing towards the civilian reconstruction process in Afghanistan, which may also ultimately help generate a positive political environment for peace building – most critical for ensuring sustainable peace and stability in the SCO region.

On the connectivity front, China’s OBOR has certainly put India in a quandary. In fact, the decision to expand the SCO seems to be spurred mainly by economic factors. To allay any misgivings, Beijing has taken a grandstanding position on OBOR/CPEC suggesting that these would prove conducive for the development and prosperity of the “whole region”.

China has separately pushed its own USD 46 billion worth “China Pakistan Economic Corridor” (CPEC) overland project to link Western China with Gwadar Port in Pakistan. India resented China’s plan of building the corridor through its sovereign territory of Gilgit-Baltistan illegally held by Pakistan. Beijing considers CPEC an economic "livelihood project" that is not aimed at a third country. There is no way that India will compromise on the sovereignty issue of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). However, rhetoric aside, a set of projects envisaged under OBOR and CPEC could transform the region flanking the north of India into a new economic hub and a zone of joint projects having implications for India.

For its part, Russia has already found a way to reconcile its own transport connectivity plans with that of OBOR. To seek mutual benefits, Putin and Xi had decided last year to bring greater synergy between projects under the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and OBOR. Similarly, all the five Central Asian states view the OBOR and EAEU as having the potential to transform the region into a major hub of transcontinental transportation networks.

While most countries are unwilling to openly articulate their concerns, but a country like Iran also probably believes that China’s OBOR plan is not convincingly transparent. Iranian policy thinkers, while interacting with this author and other Indian analysts – during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Tehran on 22-23 May 2016 – admitted that OBOR is definitely geopolitically driven.

The same may be also true about China’s other projects undertaken across the Eurasian space and along the maritime route across the Indian Ocean. Chinese investment in Gwadar, port building in Sri Lanka, a military base in Djibouti and now the development of port and industrial facilities in Oman are underpinned by geopolitical and military objectives.

These have been a source of concern for India. Quite clearly, others will also eventually feel the need to challenge China’s aggressive posturing. The countries in Southeast Asia are already questioning China’s real motives.

India certainly cannot be indifferent and stay outside the infrastructure and connectivity being built on such a scale. By joining SCO, India should be able to think more sharply on how to respond to OBOR and find ways to join both the Russian and Chinese built transport network.

In fact, India should be consulting Iran, Russia and the states of the Caucasus to coordinate on respective connectivity projects under consideration. The International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) on which a lot of work is being done requires urgent implementation.

India has already undertaken steps to find alternate ways. By committing investments for the development of Chabahar port, India has indicated its seriousness about enhancing regional connectivity. In fact, the ground-breaking events of Chabahar (Iran) and Salma Dam (Afghanistan) projects – weeks ahead of the Tashkent Summit – were seemingly meant to signal India’s strong commitment for the regional integration process.

India has never been opposed to working with Pakistan or China on connectivity or exploring opportunities for undertaking joint energy projects like TAPI. But lack of transparency and perpetual hostility by Pakistan has virtually led to India being cut off from accessing Eurasia to connect with China’s Silk Road projects. Therefore, the Chabahar project is the only way to overcome both Pakistani geopolitical hostility and the ring of Chinese encirclement that impede India’s Eurasia access. Hopefully, the Chabahar port will not only provide India access to Central Asian, Caspian, Iranian and Western Siberian gas fields but would also pave the way for tapping the vast deposits of high value rare earth minerals in Central Asia and Afghanistan.

It is evident that any policy based on rivalry is not likely to succeed. Iran has sought Indian collaboration on the Chabahar project but Tehran has also indicated that it would like to keep its options open on Chabahar. Top Iranian officials have already denied that Chabahar is meant as a rival to Gwadar. Instead, Tehran seems to be looking for partnership with Pakistan and China with also an eye to join China’s OBOR initiative as well as to tap into CPEC. Clearly, Iran is keen to push its own gas pipeline along the same route to reach China’s Western province.

Similarly, the Afghan Ambassador to China Janan Mosazai also stated that his country has an “extraordinarily” close relationship with India but supports the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). As stated earlier, Russia and the Central Asian states have applauded China's OBOR as an initiative to bridge East and West. Surprisingly, China too is seeing Chabahar in a positive perspective. Chinese media close to the Communist Party has lauded India in an editorial for contributing to ‘regional connectivity’.

Against these regional perspectives, India cannot be taking a position other than a cooperative one if it wants to genuinely exploit opportunities that SCO processes may offer. Any policy on connectivity underpinned by a spirit of rivalry is going to make India an odd one out. India should certainly join SCO with a fresh mind without any ambiguity. But at the same time, India should be mindful of the geopolitical calculations that underpin these connectivity projects.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Jun 2016 00:13

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 59208.html
India's embarrassing North Korean connection

This is not Hong's first stint in India. In 1996, he stayed in the country for nine months, studying a course in remote sensing technology at the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific (CSSTEAP).The research centre is located in Dehradun, a small town in the foothills of the Himalayas, about 235km from the Indian capital New Delhi.Since then, North Korea has sent at least 30 students to train at the institute.Two are currently studying there, one of whom is affiliated with the National Aerospace Development Administration, which, the report says, plays a key role in the country's nuclear development programme.And it kept sending scientists and space employees, even after the UN issued the first set of nuclear sanctions in 2006, prohibiting member countries from providing technical training to North Korea.The lapse was exposed only in March 2016 in an annual report to the UN Security Council.The "repeated applications" by North Korea, the report said, indicates the courses were relevant to its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programme.The UN has issued five major sanctions against North Korea since 2006.ndia justified the content of the courses, saying that the topics covered are "very general" and the basic principles of these courses "are available from open-source".

It also said that topics covered "would certainly not contribute to acquiring expertise in those specific areas by the participants".However, North Korean students who trained in the school have gone on to occupy important state positions in Pyongyang.After finishing his course in India, Hong, the official at the North Korean embassy in Delhi, went on to head a research group on remote sensing technology at the State Commission for Science and Technology, where he worked until his assignment in India.Paek Chang-ho, who had been on the satellite communications course at the institute in 1999-2000, before the sanctions were issued, became the head of an agency involved with North Korea's first satellite launch in 2012.The 52-year-old Paek, who ended up on the UN's sanctions list for his role in the 2012 launch, is now a senior official at a scientific research agency."The training may very well have helped North Korea's military programmes," Bruce Bechtol, president of the International Council on Korean Studies, said in an email.But the Texas-based professor and Korea expert said that the result of the probe "does not necessarily make India complicit" with North Korea's programme. According to the report, North Korea tried to send at least one student to the institute in 2015 to attend a global navigation satellite systems course, although his application along with those of four others was rejected."I don't know why they have rejected all the applications," Hong, of the North Korean embassy in Delhi, told Al Jazeera."I have contacted the university officials but they are yet to give me an explanation."Hong seems unaware of the Security Council report, or that India has been asked for an explanation over the apparent lapse.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jun 2016 02:08

Alarmist article to deflect blame o to India for benign courses. Again tarring by association.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Jun 2016 13:27

Why India should focus nearer East - Rahul Mazumdar, Business Line

A very sensible article.

India recently concluded the long-awaited contract with Iran to develop the Chabahar port, and a related deal involving the establishment of a trilateral trade and economic corridor. This engagement is possibly one of the most crucial steps which would not only enable India’s access to Afghanistan, but also large parts of Central Asia which are rich in natural resources. It is significant also because India gets to contest China’s influence in the region.

While there’s been some headway in Central Asia, in the immediate neighbourhood things have not been quite so impressive in terms of India’s investments. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) have all been exhibiting more than 5 per cent GDP growth over the last few years, as the world economy struggled to breach the 2.5 per cent growth. Myanmar and Vietnam have led the pack, with 8.5 per cent and 6 per cent growth respectively.

‘Acting’ East

In 2014, the Government announced the Act East Policy to bring more focus to this region, in particular, to the CLMV nations. However, no significant business engagements have resulted, and if this situation continues, the Act East Policy may just appear as old wine in a new bottle.

The CLMV region has received a significant amount of FDI. Since 2011, the amount of FDI into the region has increased phenomenally from $13.3 billion in 2011 to $38.7 billion in 2015. A chunk of this has gone to Vietnam (60.6 per cent), followed by Myanmar (25.3 per cent). In 2015 alone, CLMV saw a 22 per cent increase in investments from around the world.

Interestingly, both these countries, Vietnam and Myanmar, also offer tremendous opportunities for India to access huge markets. Myanmar, along with Cambodia and Laos, by virtue of being a Least Developed Country, benefits from the most favourable regime available under the EU’s ‘Everything But Arms’ scheme, providing duty-free and quota-free access to the EU for the export of products, except arms and ammunition. On the other hand, the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement to which Vietnam is a signatory along with 11 other Pacific economies representing 26 per cent of world trade, would provide almost duty-free access to goods produced in and exported from Vietnam.

While Myanmar could act as the gateway to the entire Asean region apart from tapping the significant local market, Indian companies in Vietnam would get direct access to the developing and developed markets of TPP members such as Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and the US, as well as Vietnam. Besides these, it goes without saying that CLMV would provide access to the entire Asean landmass.

India’s negligible presence

Unfortunately, bilateral economic engagement between India and the CLMV countries is less than satisfactory. The irony is that in spite of these apparent benefits, India’s cumulative investment in two of the large markets in the region, Myanmar and Vietnam, stands at an abysmal low of $1.1 billion and $2.2 billion, during 2011 and 2015. India’s share in total investments in the CLMV region during the same period stands at just 2.4 per cent.

On the other hand, while imports by CLMV doubled during 2010 and 2014, India’s share in its imports remained the same, hovering around 2 per cent, since 2010.

The ground reality is that while China already has made significant inroads into CLMV, countries far from Europe and the Asia-Pacific are not far behind. It may not be out of place to conclude that India is increasingly being observed to be missing the bus in the CLMV region. Ideally, India should have been playing to its strengths in the region, executing projects in the area of healthcare, ICT and education, and possibly even replicating some of its African models.

Good economics is good politics. India must increasingly push for engaging more with these four countries in the region so as to benefit not only on the economic front, but also be a constructive and strategic partner in their growth stories. For example, for India which supports the democratic principles in Myanmar, it would be easier to get the economic relationship with that country stronger. In the case of Vietnam, India’s current interests have been more skewed towards defence and security, and this needs to be widened economically as well.

A big dose of lethargy

While the Government in 2014 had expressed the desire to set up a ₹500-crore Project Development Fund (PDF) for catalysing Indian investments in CLMV countries, the same has not seen any significant traction on the ground either. Should this initiative see the light of day, it will usher in a good amount of Indian investments into the region, possibly in textiles, leather and low-end manufacturing, amongst others.

The Kaladan multi-modal transit-transport system conceived in 2008 envisioning connecting India’s north-eastern States through Myanmar to its Sitwe port has been in limbo due to delay and escalated costs. The project was intended to be a landmark initiative that would facilitate India’s links to the Asean region.

It is extremely important, given the geopolitical conditions, that inertia at the government level be shaken off so as to see the completion of the planned projects. There has been apprehension in some quarters about completion of the Chabahar port in time, in light of India’s recent record in delays in completion of strategic projects. Such notions should be corrected.

As India goes to Laos in a few months to participate in the Asean summit, we hope to see some focus shifting back to the region.

The writer is an economist with Exim Bank, India.

member_27581 · Post by **member_27581** » 22 Jun 2016 13:30

Jhujar wrote:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 59208.html
India's embarrassing North Korean connection

This is al jaljeera..what else should we expect. We should be grateful that they didnt bring the oppression of minorities, muslims in India.. and of course didnt blame us for the Pakistanis going nooclear..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Jun 2016 20:05

ranjan.rao wrote:
Jhujar wrote:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 59208.html
India's embarrassing North Korean connection
This is al jaljeera..what else should we expect. We should be grateful that they didnt bring the oppression of minorities, muslims in India.. and of course didnt blame us for the Pakistanis going nooclear..

I think the STFU thread has the link to the US reports of TSP smuggling Chinese made Nickel alloys to North Korea and right on cue this article comes.

arun · Post by **arun** » 27 Aug 2016 14:30

Our MEA should not accept Taqiyya and Kitman reeking explanations that OIC pronouncements on Jammu & Kashmir somehow do not represent the views of the individual Mohammadden majority countries on the Jammu & Kashmir issue.

As a start, our MEA should as a matter of course summon individual members of OIC and lodge protest for any pronouncement by the OIC on J&K that is not to our liking:

Transcript of Media Briefing by Secretary (ER), JS (BM) and Official Spokesperson (August 26, 2016)
August 27, 2016 ……………………………

Question: What has been Egypt’s stand in OIC on the issue of Kashmir?

Secretary Economic Relations, Shri Amar Sinha: That is an issue that we will raise with them. You see, most of our partners, they have very good relations with us, but when it comes to OIC, they allow somebody else to run the agenda, so that is something that we are trying to change because we would want our friends to take a stand. They have to look at the issue and understand that OIC has no locus standi absolutely on Jammu & Kashmir, it’s an internal matter and they appreciate that. They take a public posture, but what they tell us privately, there is slight gap and we would like that what they tell us privately, they should also say publicly and take a stand.

From here:

Clicky

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 03 Sep 2016 04:49

Delhi spells out Indian Ocean policy amid tension over South China Sea - ToI

India supports freedom of navigation and overflight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the United Nations' law of the sea, foreign secretary S Jaishankar said on Friday.

Addressing the first Indian Ocean Conference by the Ram Madhav-led India Foundation in Singapore, the foreign secretary spoke about development initiatives, regional diplomacy, naval cooperation, blue economy and international law to spell out India's integrated strategy for the region.

"We are working on ambitious plans for port and portled development that would make our 7,500km coastline more relevant to the future of the Indian Ocean and India. We are similarly looking at more aggressively developing some of our 1,200 islands," he said.

Highlighting the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor and others being built across the country he said, "If you juxtapose these infrastructure initiatives with the 'Make in India' programme, the implications for the Indian Ocean are quite evident."

He recognized that building an Indian Ocean 'sensibility' or common strategic space among littoral countries who already think of themselves as belonging to different groupings may be difficult. "Encouraging them to work towards a composite Indian Ocean is, therefore, not easy. None probably would be opposed but few actually have the necessary enthusiasm or appetite. At a diplomatic level, promoting greater interaction among these groupings would itself make an important contribution to the Indian Ocean," the foreign secretary said.

For all those wondering whether PM Narendra Modi would travel to Pakistan for the November Saarc summit, Jaishankar offered encouragement. "We see the re-energizing of Saarc as one of our key foreign policy priorities. India is very conscious that South Asia is among the least integrated regions of the world. "

Minister of state for external affairs, M J Akbar, described India as "pivotal power". "India, geopolitically in the centre, has become the 'Pivotal Power of Asia'. India is the western frontier of peace, and the eastern frontier of war."

Keeping the heat on China following the Hague court's South China Sea award, the foreign secretary reiterated, "India believes States should resolve disputes through peaceful means without threat or use of force and exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that could complicate or escalate disputes affecting peace and stability. Sea lanes of communication are critical for peace, stability, prosperity and development.

As a State Party to the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which establishes the international legal order of the seas and oceans."

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 03 Sep 2016 09:27

Modi's visit to Vietnam before China and after Kerry meeting is a significant diplomatic escalation.

PMO wants China to cooperate on Pakistan and on NSG membership.

The two are now non-negotiable given the deteriorating relations between Punjab and the adjoining territories.

If the Chinese do not back down, we will have no choice but to sign CISMOA and BECA like agreements.

I'm getting a nuclear test itch.

sum · Post by **sum** » 03 Sep 2016 10:05

India is the western frontier of peace, and the eastern frontier of war

Sorry for being dense but what does this mean?

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 03 Sep 2016 10:23

sum wrote:
India is the western frontier of peace, and the eastern frontier of war
Sorry for being dense but what does this mean?

In my understanding, it means that to the West of India, there's war, anarchy, instability, religious terrorism all the way to Morocco. To our East, lie the lands of peace and prosperity.

What MJ Akbar seems to be saying is that it's India that has stopped the war and terror from spreading further east and forms the westernmost defence against terror pillaging these lands.