Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48113
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 01 Jul 2017 03:18

Philip, I think the US got deep intelligence on Indian military and political weakness during the short liaison mission in aftermath of 1962 Chinise war. This went as input to Pak planning for 1965.

Schmidt
BRFite
Posts: 218
Joined: 19 Aug 2016 08:02

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Schmidt » 01 Jul 2017 10:07

Nice article on Indo Iranian ties

https://swarajyamag.com/world/reality-c ... ional-ties

Advocates India adopting a pragmatic and hard nosed approach rather than through any rose tinted glasses invoking some nonsensical shared heritage

If at all we did have some commonalities that was millennia ago

Now they are as rabid an Islamic country as another , who have never really stood for us either

They are also untrustworthy as a business partner

When they suffer from sanctions they give us oil field exploration rights and talk up Chabahar Port , but when the sanction ease off they go back on their agreements

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3528
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Satya_anveshi » 04 Aug 2017 09:42

Xposting from Politics thread:

Satya_anveshi wrote:MUST WATCH!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93dswlYnTvk


VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby VinodTK » 04 Aug 2017 18:32

^^^^ Very good show by SS

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1737
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chola » 04 Aug 2017 18:51

Schmidt wrote:Nice article on Indo Iranian ties

https://swarajyamag.com/world/reality-c ... ional-ties

Advocates India adopting a pragmatic and hard nosed approach rather than through any rose tinted glasses invoking some nonsensical shared heritage

If at all we did have some commonalities that was millennia ago

Now they are as rabid an Islamic country as another , who have never really stood for us either

They are also untrustworthy as a business partner

When they suffer from sanctions they give us oil field exploration rights and talk up Chabahar Port , but when the sanction ease off they go back on their agreements


They are what they are. Mooslem fanatics. About time we wash ourselves of these idiotic "ties" that are nothing but some romantic notions of shared culture. Whatever that was good was subsumed a 1000 years ago under the tide of Islam.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4960
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby RoyG » 04 Aug 2017 18:58

chola wrote:
Schmidt wrote:Nice article on Indo Iranian ties

https://swarajyamag.com/world/reality-c ... ional-ties

Advocates India adopting a pragmatic and hard nosed approach rather than through any rose tinted glasses invoking some nonsensical shared heritage

If at all we did have some commonalities that was millennia ago

Now they are as rabid an Islamic country as another , who have never really stood for us either

They are also untrustworthy as a business partner

When they suffer from sanctions they give us oil field exploration rights and talk up Chabahar Port , but when the sanction ease off they go back on their agreements


They are what they are. Mooslem fanatics. About time we wash ourselves of these idiotic "ties" that are nothing but some romantic notions of shared culture. Whatever that was good was subsumed a 1000 years ago under the tide of Islam.


With large swaths of Iraq and Syria falling under their control, they will muscle into Afghanistan and Pakistan as well.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 13 Aug 2017 09:13

X Posted from the “India-US relations: News and Discussions IV” thread.

Excerpt from US State Department’s Daily Press Briefing of August 10:

Heather Nauert
Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 10, 2017 ……………………..

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: Okay, last question. Afghanistan. Hi.

QUESTION: What’s your stand on Senator McCain’s Afghan strategy which he unveiled this morning? Have you seen this?

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm. So I’m certainly aware of Senator McCain’s proposal. By the way, it was great to see Senator McCain back here in Washington just a few weeks ago, a very strong and tough man. And as someone whose own father experienced the same illness that he had, I was really proud to see him walk back into Washington.

That personal note aside, let me just say the Afghan review policy, which I know a lot of people are very curious about, is still under way. There have been a lot of conversations and negotiations with the President’s national security team. Of course, that includes Secretary Tillerson as part of that. We are looking at this as not just a solution to Afghanistan, but also a broader concern that incorporates India and Pakistan as well as a regional solution. We just don’t have that plan. And by the way, the White House will roll out that plan, but we just don’t have that done just yet. It’s still under review, okay?


If this “broader concern that incorporates India” involves doing an Equal=Equal with the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic by way of allaying their paranoia and/or limiting our role Afghnaistan, the US should be told to FO. Anyway as this is still “under review”, wait and watch.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 16 Aug 2017 14:33

X Posted from the India-US relations: News and Discussions IV thread.

Prime Minister Modi thanked President Trump for his strong leadership uniting the world against the North Korean menace.


If true that this is indeed what our Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, I am truly disgusted at this abject grovelling our Prime Minister. I say that as North Korea is a minor direct security threat in comparison to the menance of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Peoples Republic of China etc., as at worst North Korea represents a menace only from the limited standpoint of proliferating missile technology to the Islamic Republic. If on the other hand this is a bit of Self Aggandisement by Donald Trump then India must officially deny.

Bollocks to any “Half Wit Saudi Princes”, “It's in our national interest to flatter them” type arguents that were trotted out in the Hindustan Times article posted by me on this same page of this thread (Clicky)


Readout of President Donald J. Trump’s Call with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 18 Aug 2017 11:53

X posted from the India-US relations: News and Discussions IV thread.

Excerpts from August 17 joint press conference held by US and Japan Defense and Foreign Affairs officials dealing with India.

US Secretary of State, Rex W Tillerson:

We will also cooperate to advance trilateral and multilateral security and defense cooperation with other partners in the region, notably the Republic of Korea, Australia, India, and other southeast Asian countries.


Foreign Minister of Japan, Taro Kono:

ROK, Australia, India, and Southeast Asian countries – we will promote more than ever before cooperation and security and defense.


There was no India specific remark made by US Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis (Retd.) or for that matter by Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera who were also present.

Excerpts from the US State Department website at the below weblink:

Remarks With Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono, and Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera at a Press Availability

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 18 Aug 2017 13:28

Former NSA MKN.Politely saying what we on BRF have been saying for aeons!

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 513055.ece
Redrawing the arc of influence
M.K. Narayanan AUGUST 18, 2017 00:00 IST

Indian diplomacy needs to display higher levels of sophistication for New Delhi to play a global role

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s schedule of foreign visits has been extremely impressive, and he has managed to inject a degree of dynamism into a system accustomed to a more leisurely pace. Estimating outcomes from these visits is, however, more difficult.

Taking the two most recent visits, for example, one can easily see the contrast in outcomes. The U.S. visit was a carefully calibrated one producing few surprises, despite the U.S. President having a reputation of being highly unpredictable. For his part, the Prime Minister charted a time-tested course, concentrating mainly on counter-terrorism and the defence security partnership, avoiding contentious trade-related issues. The naming of the Hizbul Mujahedeen chief as a “specially designated global terrorist” and a “new consultation mechanism on domestic and international terrorist designations listing proposals” were the high points of the counter-terrorism agenda. Reiteration of India’s position as a major defence partner and confirmation of the sale of the Guardian Unmanned Aerial System to India, reflected the deepening security and defence cooperation.

In concrete terms, not much else took place during the visit, despite an oblique reference in the joint statement to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and reiteration of support for “freedom of navigation” in the Indo-Pacific. What was most obvious was the U.S. tilt towards transactional rather than strategic aspects.

A clear de-hyphenation

In the case of Israel, this being the first ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to that country, the euphoria of the standalone visit, de-hyphenating Israel from Palestine, was understandable. It also produced better dividends, including elevation of the India-Israel relationship to the level of a ‘strategic partnership’. Israel achieved a major propaganda scoop by getting the Indian Prime Minister to visit the memorial of Theodor Herzl, founding father of the Zionist movement.

The main focus of the visit was on defence cooperation, joint development of defence products and transfer of technology. Most of the agreements signed related to transfer of technology and innovative technology-related items and India expects to benefit substantially, considering that Israeli export rules are far more flexible than those of the U.S.

Both countries also expressed a strong commitment to combat terror. The reality, however, is that when the two countries speak of terrorism, they speak of very different things. Iran and Hezbollah are the main targets for Israel, which has little interest in the Afghan Taliban or Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba. For India, it is the latter that matters.

The euphoria of the visit cannot, however, conceal China’s importance for Israel. China is a far bigger investor and trading partner of Israel than India. On this occasion, India and Israel decided to set up a $40 million Innovation Fund to allow Indian and Israeli enterprises to develop innovative technologies and products for commercial applications, but it is clearly dwarfed by the Israel-China comprehensive innovation partnership which has an outlay of $300 million. India and Israel also have differences over China’s BRI: Israel is eager to participate in it, unlike India, and possibly views this as an opportunity to develop a project parallel to the Suez Canal.

It’s the neighbours

Two countries where India’s diplomacy, despite the impetus given to it, is currently facing heavy odds are China and Pakistan. China in Asia is already exercising some of the political and economic leverages that the U.S. previously possessed. China has a significant presence in East and Southeast Asia, is steadily enlarging its presence in South Asia, and is also beginning to expand into West Asia. For instance, China’s influence in Iran today appears to be at an all-time high, whereas India’s influence seems to be diminishing.

India has, however, refused to be inveigled by China’s blandishments, including the BRI. Nor has it flinched from standing up to Chinese ‘bullying’, as in the recent instance of the Doklam plateau in Bhutan. Few other countries in Asia are, however, willing or in a position to tangle with China. A divided ASEAN again has provided China with an opportunity to demonstrate its economic and military muscle. Most countries in the region also demonstrate a desire to join China-based initiatives. Even in South Asia, despite India’s commanding presence, China has been successful in winning quite a few friends among India’s neighbours such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

*(Here is where our apthetic MEA dropped the ball,not once or twice,but umpteen times.We have to regain what was lost usigng every means in the book,India's survival as asovereign [power depends upon control over our immediate neighbour's relations with our mortal enemies.)

In the case of Pakistan, the implosion of the state arising from its internal stresses and problems, together with the virtual standoff between India and Pakistan (involving a total cessation of talks or any kind of worthwhile contacts), has enabled the Pakistani Deep State to further entrench itself. India has been left with few options and this is leading to a diplomatic gridlock which does not augur well for India.

As Pakistan becomes still more deeply mired in problems, its dependence on China is growing. This is contributing to a strategic imbalance in the South Asian region. It is a moot point whether India and Indian diplomacy can do something to rectify matters in this context, but for the present it confronts Indian diplomacy with one more serious dilemma.

Notwithstanding India’s efforts, the diplomatic scene vis-à-vis Russia also could be better. Russia is undergoing a strategic resurgence of sorts, sustained in good measure by the close relations recently established with China. Buoyed by developments in the Ukraine and Crimea, and the uncertainties surrounding U.S. commitment to NATO, the new Russia-China ‘strategic congruence’ is certain to impact Asia. The problem for India and Indian diplomacy is that at this time India-Russia relations appear less robust than at any time in the past half century.

India’s ‘Act East and Look West’ policies have given a new dimension to Indian diplomacy in both East and West Asia. In both regions, however, but especially in West Asia, Indian diplomacy still lacks the nimbleness required to deal with fast-changing situations. In West Asia, despite its long time presence in the region, a 9-million strong diaspora, and the region being its principal source of oil, India is not a major player today. Both Russia and China have overtaken India in the affairs of the region. This is particularly true of Iran where the Russia-China-Iran relationship has greatly blossomed, almost marginalising India’s influence.

Fadeout in West Asia

India’s absence from, and its inability to play a role in, West Asia, even as the region confronts a split down the line between the Arab and the non-Arab world is unfortunate. More so, there is the possibility of a series of confrontations between an increasingly powerful Shiite Iran and a weakening Saudi Arabia. The most recent challenge is the one posed by Qatar to the existing order in the West Asian region. The fallout of all this will impact India adversely and Indian diplomacy’s inability to make its presence felt will matter. An additional concern for India would be that growing uncertainties in the region could further fuel radical Islamist terror in the region.

*(Relations with Iran being allowed to go downhill tx to US pressure.Why can't we stand up and say NO to the US ,just as it =refuses to ditch Pak?)

The ‘Act East’ policy has produced better results. Closer relations with countries in East and South East Asia, especially Japan and Vietnam, are a positive development. However, in the Asia-Pacific, India has to contend with an increasingly assertive China. There is little evidence to show that India’s diplomatic manoeuvres individually, or with allies like Japan, have succeeded in keeping the Chinese juggernaut at bay — or for that matter provide an alternative to China in the Asia-Pacific.

India’s diplomatic establishment is all too aware of the political history and economics of the Asian region. Under Prime Minister Modi, diplomatic styles have changed but it would seem that the substance has altered little. His recent visit to Israel was, no doubt, a resounding success, but Israel was already one of the very few countries which had shown a complete understanding of India’s defence and security needs, even ignoring the sanctions imposed on India by some countries. Israel’s supply of critical defence items during the Kargil conflict (of 1999) is an excellent example.

What Indian diplomacy currently needs to do is to find a way to steer amid an assertive China, a hostile Pakistan, an uncertain South Asian and West Asian neighbourhood, and an unstable world. The strategic and security implications of these, individually and severally, need to be carefully validated and pursued. Indian diplomacy may possibly need to display still higher levels of sophistication to overcome the odds.

M.K. Narayanan is a former National Security Adviser and a former Governor of West Bengal


PS:MKN's narrative completely ignores India's relations with Russia,which at one time was the lynchpin of our foreign policy.This allowed us to defeat Pak in '71,brush off the Chinese,etc. Sure,things changed after the USSR collapsed,but allowing Indo-Russian relations to stagnate,without injecting a new dynamism to the same,rushing to "love" Bush,etc., has cost us dearly. Russo-Sino relations as a result have vastly improved,but India still has an edge which must be leveraged more forcefully especially at this time of crisis with China.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 18 Aug 2017 15:46

Philip wrote:Sure,things changed after the USSR collapsed,but allowing Indo-Russian relations to stagnate,without injecting a new dynamism to the same,rushing to "love" Bush,etc., has cost us dearly. Russo-Sino relations as a result have vastly improved,but India still has an edge which must be leveraged more forcefully especially at this time of crisis with China.

Hmm.. so India is at fault for letting relations with Russia 'stagnate'?

1993 - China-Russia 5 year defence cooperation agreement

2001 - Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship - (20 year strategic treaty)

^ Article 9 - When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

2005 - India-US Defence Framework agreement

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 19 Aug 2017 11:10

So what were we doing when the Indo-Sov. treaty of P&F was ending? Did we even bother to use our old ties with the new states,former republics of the USSR? Maggie Thatcher's first visit at that tome to E.Europe was to Kazakhastan,which had a large number of Sov. BMs.It is a historical fact that we later rued the lost opportunity to leverage our erstwhile influence with these states.This allowed Pak to get Ukranian T-80UDs.The Chinese scooped up hundreds of Russian scientists,who would've preferred to work in India (I was told this by one in the know),which allowed them to rapidly develop their home made systems and clone Sov. era weapon systems too.

Who reached out to the African nations first? China.We had for decades tremendous respect and influence in Africa becos of our stand against apartheid and could've asked for anything.A former CNS told me in utter disgust how one state wanted to revamp its navy and asked us for help.It took the MEA 2 years to approve 2 economy class tkts for the naval team to travel there! By that time,the govt. felt that we ere not interested in wanting them to develop a strong navy.You now have the Chinese squatting ion Djibouti. Who was offered Hambantota Port first? Who was earlier also offered Trinco for naval purposes? It cannot be denied that under prev. regimes after Rajiv G.,our MEA dropped the ball time and time again. It is now a huge task for the Modi regime to recover the lost ground,some of which cannot be recovered at all.

The very least we should've done with Russia,etc.,was to have established a new platform for relations in the post-Sov. era not only with Russia but with all the former Sov. republics. One firang VVIP personally known,was aghast at India's puny diplomacy considering our size and strength when compared with China's efforts over a decade ago.He warned me that they (China) had hardly begun to exercise their full strength and that India was oblivious to the Chinese masterplan for Asia and the IOR.At that time,people laughed when one warned of the PLAN subs,etc, foraying into the IOR.No one is laughing now! One of our sr. diplomats,said when I had a lengthy chat with him several years ago of the impending crisis,said "unfortunately,the view from Delhi is different (MEA),they ignore what we tell them..)

PS:MKN's forgetfullness of Russia in his "arc..." piece indicates the alzheimers that afflicts some of the establishment.He was too busy ramming through the Indo-US N-deal for Snake-Oil Singh ,using every means poss. to convince our netas.Fortunately,Jet Li with his recent visit and the current NSA think seem to be diifferently minded..

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 23 Aug 2017 11:33

X Posted from the "India-US relations: News and Discussions IV" thread.

Indian Origin US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley:

"We've got to put the pressure on India that they have to be part of the political solution"

I wonder where the f**k this US arrogance that they can “pressure” a country like India comes from such that it can even warp the judgement of an Indian Origin individual like Nikki Haley :x :?:

I hope this arrogance is not a case of the “Saudi Half Wit Prince” type abjectly grovelling type flattery of Donald Trump regards North Korea by our PM Narendra Modi, boomeranging back on us in India as the US assumption that it can pressure India when it has not been able to pressure the much smaller Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is plain ludicrous.

See 5:15 of the below CNN Video for the Nikki Haley’s arrogant comment on pressurising India:

NIKKI HALEY FULL INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS CUOMO - NEW DAY (8/22/2017)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 23 Aug 2017 11:49

Expecting us to play "second fiddle" to yet another "Pox Americana" in Afghanistan,is simply out of the Q.Unless India's concerns about Paki terror being looked at through Nelsonian eyes,nothing positive will happen in the region. As another member pointed out very correctly,all these decades the west was trying to prevent the Soviets from getting a "warm water port".But what have they done when Pak simply gifted away Gwadar to the Chinese?!

If Pak is not tamed and its terror infrastructure dismantled,Pak will only get emboldened and the West will suffer even greater terror on its home soil.
Veteran journo and author,Hiranmay Karlekar warned the US/West after the attacks on India over a decade ago that they would suffer if Pak was not leashed.They did nothing and 9/11 happened.His book on Afghanistan is worth reading again.
Now that Pak has been completely exposed and a no-nonsense US pres. in the White House...sorry,Trump Towers,the time to act on Pak has arrived.Trump must increase the pressure on the pain points of Pak to get quick results. Delaying Pak's pain will see the opportunity slip away. If China comes to the rescue of Pak,then China must suffer the same sanctions,etc.,too.

amohan2001
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 18 Sep 2016 15:38

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby amohan2001 » 23 Aug 2017 12:13

India should be partner of USA in resolving Afghanistan problem, if and only if defanging of Pakistan, free hand on POK and Freedom for Baluchistan is part of the solution.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 23 Aug 2017 12:55

Philip wrote:So what were we doing when the Indo-Sov. treaty of P&F was ending?

Trying to stave off bankruptcy and mortgaging our gold.

The very least we should've done with Russia,etc.,was to have established a new platform for relations in the post-Sov. era not only with Russia but with all the former Sov. republics.

None of which is likely to have staved off the reality of Russian-Chinese relations.

Diplomatic outreaches don't mean jack when weighed against core national interests (or at least what countries perceive as their core national interest). Russia didn't sign a defence agreement with China because the Chinese arrived with a 50 man delegation instead of a 10 man delegation.

They did so because they calculated that their core interests were better served by pursuing a close relationship with emerging great power like the PRC even if that was to detriment of ties with near bankrupt old 'friend'. That's how realpolitik works.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 24 Aug 2017 11:18

X Posted from the “India-US relations: News and Discussions IV”.

US Secretary of State humbly and politely enough requests India to “take some steps of rapprochement on issues with Pakistan to improve the stability within Pakistan and remove some of the reasons why they deal with these unstable elements inside their own country”.

India should in turn politely tell the US that we in India have no intention in interfering in the internal affairs of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan by mitigating the blowback of the policy followed by the Islamic Republics Punjabi Military dominated Deep State of fomenting Mohammadden Terrorism in a vain attempt to intimidate neighbouring States like India.

Remarks
Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of State
Press Briefing Room
Washington, DC
August 22, 2017 ……………………

MS NAUERT: Last question. Welcome, AFP. Front desk here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Don’t you fear on the other side that too much pressure, too tough pressure on Pakistan may destabilize the Islamabad and may have destabilizing all the region with having Taliban stronger in the country?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: That is a concern, and that’s why I made the comments I just made, that I think it’s important that Pakistan begin to think about its ability to contain these groups as well.

It’s why, though, we take a regional approach. The U.S. alone is not going to change this dynamic with Pakistan. India and Pakistan, they have their own issues that they have to continue to work through, but I think there are areas where perhaps even India can take some steps of rapprochement on issues with Pakistan to improve the stability within Pakistan and remove some of the reasons why they deal with these unstable elements inside their own country.

As I said, other regional players have strong interest in Pakistan. China has strong interest in Pakistan. Having a stable, secure future Pakistan is in a lot of our interests. They are a nuclear power. We have concerns about their weapons, the security of their weapons. There are many areas in which we believe we should be having very productive dialogue that serves both of our interests and regional interest as well.

So this is – again, this is not a situation where the U.S. is saying, “Look, it’s just us and you.” What our approach is to bring – as I said, these regional approaches is to bring all the other interest into this effort. Much as we’ve done with North Korea and assembling this global effort in North Korea, I think too often we try to distill these challenges down to where it’s just the U.S. and some other country and only between the two of us can we solve it. We have to enlarge the circle of interest and bring others to – into the effort as well, and that’s what we’ll be doing with Pakistan as well.


From the US State Department website:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Press Availability

Meanwhile any notion that the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan may have nurtured that US Secretary of State Tillerson’s call for “Rapprochement” implied a change in the hands-off US policy on Jammu & Kashmir, in line with India’s position that no third party mediation will be permitted in the resolution of J&K, goes up smoke. In addition any hope that the Punjabi Military dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan may have harboured of leveraging a down hill skiing surrender to the US on the matter of fomenting Mohammadden Terrorism in Afghanistan for support on Jammu & Kashmir, goes up in smoke.

Heather Nauert
Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 23, 2017 ………………………….

QUESTION: And – thank you. Just in terms of the – of Pakistan, yesterday, Secretary Tillerson said that India – even India could take some steps of rapprochement to remove some of the reasons why Pakistan deals with these unstable elements inside their country. What was he referring to in terms of the steps India could take?

MS NAUERT: I think one of the things that we would do is ask or encourage India and Pakistan to sit down together and engage in direct dialogue that is aimed at reducing tensions between both of those countries.

QUESTION: So is he linking, for example, a solution – a policy on – of – for a solution on Kashmir with Pakistan-Afghanistan issues?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think going up to 30,000 feet, we view the whole strategy and handling Afghanistan as being a regional strategy, and that, of course, incorporates India as well as Pakistan, so incorporating all the nations in that region who can – we believe can help assist and help make Afghanistan a stable place where you’ll never have a terror group that will take root in that country again and can launch attacks on other countries.

QUESTION: Yeah, but does the U.S. see pushing for a solution on Kashmir as part of this regional strategy to deal with Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: In terms of Kashmir, our policy on that has not changed. We continue to encourage the sides to sit down and talk together about that.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6860
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JE Menon » 24 Aug 2017 12:03

>>In terms of Kashmir, our policy on that has not changed. We continue to encourage the sides to sit down and talk together about that.

That is about as clear as it can get. It is time now for Pakistan to ruminate on where it finds itself, consider its options and decide whether it wants to end as a functional state (such as it is), or return to civilisation after abandoning its interpretation of Islam.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 24 Aug 2017 17:57

The way I see, there are many audience of any statement. There is an internal audience, the countries in question and the world at large.

While not ignoring any part we must focus on the operative part.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 24 Aug 2017 18:01

https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll ... nd/1131102
India, Nepal ink eight pacts, call for closer security and defence ties

New Delhi, Aug 24 Nepal today assured India that it would not allow any activity against its "friendly neighbour", as the two sides signed eight pacts, including on cooperation in countering drug trafficking and post-earthquake reconstruction in the Himalayan nation.

After comprehensive talks with his Nepalese counterpart Sher Bahadur Deuba, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid emphasis on closer cooperation between the security and defence forces of the two countries in order to avoid misuse of the open border between India and Nepal.

"Defence ties and assistance in security is an important aspect of our partnership. Our defence interests are also dependent and connected to each other," Modi said at a joint press briefing after the talks.

Deuba gave an assurance of "every support, every help and cooperation".

"As you (Modi) mentioned that Nepal has an open border... I would like to assure you that Nepal will never allow any activity against friendly neighbour India and there will be every support, every help and cooperation from our side," Deuba said.

Message sent and message received.
Last edited by pankajs on 24 Aug 2017 18:09, edited 1 time in total.

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3771
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Karthik S » 24 Aug 2017 18:09

Seems Russians have come to the defense of pakis after Trump's remarks. What has happened to Russians? Leave alone India angle, this is the same country that fought against them during Afghan occupation.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 251
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 24 Aug 2017 18:48

Nothing but their frustration that their long assured buyer of Russian military crap (majority of them, if not all) is now buying more reliable American/Western stuff.
Not until a few porki vermins indulge in pakistaniyat in Russia, will these ass***es smell the coffee.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6252
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby anupmisra » 24 Aug 2017 19:02

Karthik S wrote:Seems Russians have come to the defense of pakis after Trump's remarks. What has happened to Russians? Leave alone India angle, this is the same country that fought against them during Afghan occupation.


Enemy of my enemy is my...er...temporary friend unless in a (truly paki) diabolical, Machiavellian way that temporary friend is also playing both sides of the field. Case in point - paki defense relations with Ukraine. By the way, the earliest known expression of this concept is found in the Arthashastra,

Diabolical, ain't it?

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 24 Aug 2017 19:03

The Russians know that some folks in India will start jumping at just the suggestion of a thaw with Bakistan. Our psychology is pretty transparent in some aspects and they do this little things to keep our attention.

It costs nothing to the Russians.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48113
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 24 Aug 2017 21:09

From Chanakya to Modi: The Evolution of India's Foreign Policy by Dr. Aparana Pande

Image

Foreign policy does not exist in a cultural vacuum. It is shaped by national experience and a country s view of itself. In the case of India, the foreign policy paradigm is as deeply informed by its civilizational heritage as it is by modern ideas about national interest. Even policies that appear to be new contain echoes of themes that recur in history. The two concepts that come and go most frequently in Indian engagement with the world from Chanakya in the third century bce to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2017 are autonomy and independence in decision making. There are also four trends that we can trace: messianic idealism, realism, isolationism and imperial influences ideas that have competed at one time and complemented one another at others. As India pursues modernity and seeks to exercise influence in the contemporary world, an examination of India in the context of its history and tradition is crucial. Aparna Pande's "From Chanakya to Modi" explores the deeper civilizational roots of Indian foreign policy in a manner reminiscent of Walter Russel Mead s seminal Special Providence (2001). It identifies the neural roots of India s engagement with the world outside. An essential addition to every thinking person s library.


While she uses Walter Russel Mead's four strands, Aparna Pande shows modern India's foreign policy is driven by messianic idealism as the core and the others three as strands in the rope. The Messianic Idealism is about India's place in the world from its civilizational and cultural roots and a voice for the population driven by true democratic impulse not just might is right based on UN system.

Google Books link to excerpts

Please buy the book. She is a forum lurker.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 25 Aug 2017 13:27

pankajs wrote:The Russians know that some folks in India will start jumping at just the suggestion of a thaw with Bakistan. Our psychology is pretty transparent in some aspects and they do this little things to keep our attention.

It costs nothing to the Russians.

In addition, Russians are preparing for post-US Afghanistan. Russia is already in contact with the Taliban so it make sense for them to keep a workable relation with Bakis too. One way or another US will withdraw from there one day. That is the key to understanding the whole situation even wrt US actions.

BTW, this also an opportunity for the Russians to get its revenge for what US did to USSR in Afghanistan. The US has woven quite a web for itself. There is no easy victory in Afghanistan.

What are the options
1. US stays for a ever long time Afghanistan. Some bakis seem to think of it as the actual US plan. The argument for this case is Af provides a central location from which to keep an eye on the neighborhood which includes CA, Russia, China, India, Bakistan and Iran.
1a. But for that it will need co-operation of either Baksitan or Iran. With Iran still part of axis of evil Bakistan will still be the fallback ally. So US will still be dependent on Bakis.
1b. Access via India/POK. hardly likely. Even then Bakis will not be subdues and infact their effort to oust US from Af will only increase. Not a viable solution. Escalation will lead to 3c risk.
2. US leaves in disgrace and the country in disarray. Taliban and bakis in full control.
3. US leaves victorious with a semblance of a viable government in Kabul.
3a. Unity gov in Kabul with Taliban as core but that will mean co-operation of Bakistan and a big baki say in the future of Af. So the current Trump broadside might just be the start of a negotiation on a new deal.
3b. A non-taliban government. That will means taking out Taliban and taking the fight to its main backer i.e. Bakistan. Highly unlikely. Bakis can be bombed but difficult to subdue a large country like bakistan. An unwinnable proposition and an unlikely scenario. Plus 3c risk.
3c. A non-taliban government but preceded by a breakup of bakistan. Again unlikely because of the fear of nuclear weapons. Even if we discount their usage we cannot discount their falling into the wrong hands. Not LeT but a rogue BakMil that has just lost its country. IF US is unwilling to let a Iraq happen in Af how will the world tolerate an Iraq in Bakistan? And that too with nuclear weapons in play?

Looks like the trump broadside is to jump start new negotiations with fresh goals but the bakis are past masters of such games. Some give and take will occur but none of it is going to benefit India.

PS: It seems that Trump has been convinced to stay by dangling the $1 trillion wealth buried under Af to stay for a while longer. A businessman will not spend money if he doesn't see money in the situation.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21887
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 29 Aug 2017 15:04

India must express concern at the latest NoKo ballistic missile flight over Hokkaido. This will reciprocate the open show of Japanese solidarity with India over the Doka La stand-off.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 221
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Shankk » 30 Aug 2017 07:31

^^ We should keep in mind that Japanese support came after almost two months of standoff. It was not expressed in the beginning when situation was not clear and everybody took Chinese words seriously. It rather came when it became apparent that Chinese are merely bluffing.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48113
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 07 Sep 2017 23:32

partha wrote:This is disturbing. There are so many WTFs in this article.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-when-mk-narayanan-stalled-siachen-deal-2543556

When MK Narayanan stalled Siachen deal


In 2006, the stage was set between India and Pakistan to clinch a deal over the issue of Siachen — the world's highest battlefield where the climate has claimed more lives than gunfire — but the process was scuttled by India's then National Security Advisor (NSA) MK Narayanan, former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran has claimed.

In his forthcoming part-history-part-memoir titled How India Sees the World, Saran has claimed that he and his Pakistani counterpart Riaz Mohammad Khan were close to breakthrough. He has claimed that the deal was even consented by the Indian Army, and mentioned its finer points, including current positions of the forces of the two countries, the positions to which they would withdraw, a schedule for redeployment, and a joint monitoring mechanism to prevent mutual intrusions. All this would have been recorded in an annexure to the main agreement.

In their tumultuous relations, India and Pakistan had already missed two possible deals on the Himalayan territory — located as high as 20,000 feet above sea level — in 1989 and 1992.

"To give the document additional strength, we insisted, and the Pakistani side agreed, that both the agreement and the annexure will be signed, and that the main agreement will explicitly declare that the annexure had the same legal validity as the agreement itself," records Saran, who also worked as adviser to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Of course, why wouldn't they agree? We are giving them what they want so why wouldn't they agree? Time and again GoI makes the mistake of trusting Pakistan. Will we ever learn? Sooner an IG like leader gets elected and takes care of Pakistan once for all, the better it will be.

Prime Minister Singh, who was keen on the agreement had directed the Foreign Secretary to obtain a consensus from all key stakeholders. "I did many rounds of consultations, both at the senior bureaucratic and ministerial levels in the ministries of defence, home and finance (whose members are part of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)," he said.

Saran claimed that then Army Chief General JJ Singh and the chiefs of all intelligence agencies were also brought on board.

The deal was consented by the Army and its intricate technical details including the points and timing of redeployment and also the phases in which it would have been implemented and the structure of the monitoring mechanism were actually worked out by the Director-General Of Military Operations.

After all this exercise, when approval from the CCS was seen as a mere formality, the deal was aborted after Narayanan launched a bitter offensive. The draft agreement, along with the annexures, had been put together in a note to the CCS for approval so that it could be presented as a proposal from the Indian side at the India–Pakistan Defence Secretary-level talks scheduled for May 2006. The note had been examined and agreed to by all relevant stakeholders and agencies. The CCS approval was, therefore, expected to come as a matter of course.

"When the CCS meeting was held on the eve of the Defence Secretary-level talks, the NSA launched an offensive, saying that Pakistan could not be trusted, and that there will be political and public opposition to any such initiative and that India's military position in the northern sector vis-à-vis both Pakistan and China will be compromised. General Singh, who had happily gone along with the proposal in its earlier iterations, now decided to join Narayanan in rubbishing it," records Saran in the book.

It's scary to think that it's always that one bureaucrat that saves the day for us. Remember Vivek Katju too scuttled a stupid deal with Pakis.

In the meeting, Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee decided to play it safe and proposed the deferment of its consideration until further study. The Prime Minister, who was keen to see the deal through, chose to keep silent. In the ensuing exchange of words, Narayanan, went further suggesting that Siachen be taken off the agenda of India–Pakistan talks entirely and that this should be communicated to the visiting Pakistani Defence Secretary at forthcoming talks. At this stage, Mukherjee stepped in to support Saran. He pointed out that Rajiv Gandhi himself had agreed to include Siachen in the India–Pakistan dialogue.

So F*ing what? Is Rajiv Gandhi some kind of God? Just because he included Siachen in the dialogue, should we continue doing so forever? What kind of stupidity and sycophancy is this? I thought Pranab Mukherjee was better compared to other Conmen but doesn't look like it.

Saran recalls that in 2007, when he visited a couple of high-altitude posts at the Siachen Glacier as part of a border infrastructure survey, he informally asked stationed officers it they would support a mutual withdrawal by India and Pakistan from the glacier. "The answer was an unqualified yes. I then asked whether we could risk Pakistani occupation of the area vacated by us. The officers replied that nothing better could happen because the Pakistanis would suffer 'what we have been going through these past several years," he records in the book. The opportunity to finally resolve a long-standing issue and a constant source of bitterness in Pakistan was lost.
Strange.

Saran has also referred to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf's back channel and confidential talks on Kashmir at their January 2004 meeting in Islamabad, which continued during Manmohan Singh's era as well. He also mentions another tiff with Narayanan, when he tried to rock the boat of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Even though being chief negotiator, Narayanan had excluded him from an apex committee consisting of the Department Of Atomic Energy and PMO officials.

"It often turned out that I was negotiating with William Burns on one side and the PMO on the other. Narayanan became the interlocutor between the negotiating team and the DAE, which seemed to be convinced that we were about to sell the store to the Americans," he added.

What's this itch of every PM to make a peace deal with Pakis instead of working on finishing them off? Are they after Nobel Peace Prize?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2017 19:39

In my opinion,India's mil strength would've enabled us to counter any attempt by Pak to welsh on the agreement later by embarking upon snitching Siachen. The region is so inhospitable and air strikes would've made icy tombs for any Paki forces attempting another Kargil.It has been a colossal drain on manpower and money on both sides,esp. us. If the DMZ could hold in Korea for so many decades ,a Siachen Demilitirisation would've been possible too. Siachen is not Kargil. A deal could've been signed and sufficient security monitoring established. Opportunity missed,despite our mistrust of anything signed by Pak.

However,her is where we've been singularly lethargic,tx to us doing Uncle Sam's bidding,delaying the strat. interaction with Iran,vital for India to outflank Pak.With the Yanquis now wanting us to do more in Afghanistan,developing Chahbahar to the hilt is inescapable esp. as the US cannot rely upon Pak as an ally,and may take out anti-US terror/Talib elements safe in their Paki lairs.This would make using Pak as a land route for sending supplies to the Kabul regime impossible in the future.Iran which has a long land border with Afghanistan is vital therefore in securing that nation's logistic lifeline.Will India do the needful asap? Billion$$$ Q.



Afghanistan asks India for speedy development of Iranian port
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
By: DAWN

Afghanistan’s foreign minister asked India on Monday to expedite development of a strategic port in Iran to bolster a trade route for land-locked Central Asian countries that would bypass Pakistan.

The port would allow India to transport goods to Afghanistan by sea. Pakistan currently does not allow India to transport through its territory to Afghanistan.

Last year, India committed up to $500 million for the development of the Chabahar port along with associated roads and rail lines.

Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj responded that India would speed up the port development and begin supplying wheat to Afghanistan within weeks through Chabahar.
Located in southeastern Iran, Chabahar Port serves as Iran’s only oceanic port and consists of two separate ports named Shahid Kalantari and Shahid Beheshti.

In his new Afghanistan strategy unveiled last month, US President Donald Trump asked India to do more to help Afghanistan’s development. Mr Trump also called for India’s role in bringing stability to the war-torn country.

Afghan Foreign Minister Salahuddin Rabbani also asked India to expand an air freight corridor introduced between the two countries in June to provide greater access for Afghan goods to the Indian market.

Ms Swaraj, who hosted Mr Rabbani in New Delhi, told reporters that India and Afghanistan jointly agreed to embark on a “new development partnership” in keeping with Afghanistan’s priorities.

She said more than 100 new development projects would be implemented jointly.

She said India would assist in a drinking water supply project for Kabul, low-cost housing for returning refugees, a water supply network for Charikar city, and a polyclinic in Mazar-e-Sharif.

India will also help Afghanistan build human resource capacities and skills, especially in education, health, agriculture, energy, administration and resource management, Ms Swaraj said.

The Afghan foreign minister said the two countries reaffirmed their resolve to strengthen their security and defence cooperation, but did not give any details.

India already has donated three multirole Mi-35 helicopters to Afghanistan, and trains Afghan security forces and police personnel.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Sep 2017 21:07

A Jirga of sorts by Shyam Saran on his book at CPR. This book is a must read for folks interested in Indian Foreign Policy and how the MEA conducts it. https://www.facebook.com/hindustantimes ... 822538580/

kumarn
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 16:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby kumarn » 23 Sep 2017 21:47

If siachen is tough to defend, then we needs to move north and west to the point it is easy. If can't, then stay put until we can. Too much of strategy is injurious to health. Just keep it simple.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4998
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Sep 2017 22:20

I just love this lady. UN speech by EAM Sushma Swaraj.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 02 Nov 2017 12:42

X Posted from the “India-Russia: News & Analysis” thread.

Russia’s ties with Pakistan and India cannot be "equalised": Russian ambassador ………………………..

On the sidelines of a press briefing on the recently concluded first Indo-Russia tri-services exercise, Indra-2017, Kudashev while responding to a question on India’s emerging defence partnership with Japan, the Malabar naval exercise and Russia’s views on it said, “I would say we welcome a larger bloc with an open regional architecture, where there would be space for all and space for trust and confidence. Naturally, India, Russia and Japan included.” ……………………….


The Russian response to a post-cold war substantial diminution in her national power has been to cede influence and play second fiddle to the Peoples Republic of China in her (i.e. Russia’s) old Central Asian stamping grounds in the “Stans” besides in the Far East thereby reserving slimmed down national power for play in the West in areas such as Crimea, Ukraine and Georgia. Russian Ambassador Nikolay Kudashev’s talk of welcoming “a larger bloc with an open regional architecture” is thus diplomatic hot air to gull India as Russia having already kowtowed to the PRC in the East, has no intention of curbing PRC’s shenanigans in the East.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9282
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 02 Nov 2017 13:48

X Posted from the “India-US relations: News and Discussions IV” thread.

arun wrote:
arun wrote:
So much for the visit of US secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to India. US speaks with perfidious forked tongue on Mohammadden Terrorism being a global problem and winks and nods at the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s support of Pakistan based Mohammadden Terror outfits that target India.

Foreign Minister of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, says that UN designated Mohammadden Terrorism outfit Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s name was not on the list of 75 militants the US had handed over to the Islamic Republic.

It will be interesting to know if other Pakistan based Mohammadden Terrorists that are focussed on targeting India such as Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and its boss Syed Salahuddin alias Mohammad Yusuf Shah are on the US list:

Hafiz Saeed's name not on list of 75 militants handed over by US: Khawaja Asif


At Press Availability of US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson at Geneva on October 26, 2017 a direct question by a journalist on the claim of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan that UN Designated Mohammadden Terrorist Hafiz Sayed is not on the list of terrorists handed over by the US and against whom the US expects the Islamic Republic to take action, is evaded by US secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Also evaded is the question of the Pakistan claim that no citizens of the Islamic Republic was on the US list of Mohammadden Terrorists.

Strong grounds now to conclude that the US is perfidiously walking back on the claim that it is against all Mohammadden Terrorism, especially that which emanates from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan and targets India.

QUESTION: Sir, talk about your meeting with the Pakistanis. Their official news agency has talked about how the United States has presented them with a list of 75 terrorists that the Pakistanis claim they’re – that none of them are Pakistanis, that the head of Lashkar-e Tayyiba is not on that list, and that they provided you with a list of 100 terrorists that they would like the United States to go after. Could you talk about what you specifically laid out for them when you talked to them the other day?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think what you just described is a very healthy exchange of information on terrorists, which is what we really hope to achieve with Pakistan. We have provided them specific asks, beyond just names of individuals. We’ve provided them specific asks. But we’ve also invited greater sharing from them as well. So we expect to receive information from them that will be useful.

And the specific location on any given day of where certain individuals or certain cells may be located – they do move around. As you know, the Pakistan-Afghan border is quite porous; in fact, it’s ill-defined. And so we’re less concerned about are they in Pakistani territory, in Afghanistan territory, or – as we are obtaining information so that we can eliminate them.


{……………..Rest Snipped…………………}

From the US State Department website:

Clicky


More fodder for the case that. despite being declared as “Major Defence Partner” by the US, the US has kept secret from India the list of Terrorists it has demanded from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan so as to hide the fact that Mohammadden Terrorists targeting India have been deliberately left off the list so as to humour the US’s Major Non NATO Ally, the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

Transcript of Weekly Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson (October 27, 2017)

October 27, 2017

Question: The Pakistani Foreign Minister when Tillerson was in New Delhi spoke about, in their parliament, how US has shared a list of 75 militants with the Pakistani government which does not includes Hafiz Saeed and others who are wanted here in India. How do you look at that statement? You think they are giving it a deliberate spin or how would you read those remarks of the minister there?

Official Spokesperson, Shri Raveesh Kumar: Thank you very much for the question. Unfortunately the list which was shared by the US to Pakistan, we never received a copy of that and we are unable to comment on exactly who are included and who are excluded. That is the reason why I am not in a position to respond to your question.

Question: ………………….. on the issue of terrorism. We expect that US should have shared the list that they have given to Pakistan for our own confidence.

Official Spokesperson, Shri Raveesh Kumar: See, we have to understand and unless and until we get to know under what situation or circumstances the details of the names were shared, it will be difficult for us to find out why x, y or z was not included. Coming back to your question about the stand on terrorism, I think that is very very clear. If you have been following their statement which was announced first during their India policy in Washington followed by their statement at the Bagram airbase and what he replied to a query on Pakistan. I think it demonstrates a growing convergence on such topics between India and the US.

Question Contd.: ……….. Inaudible ……..

Official Spokesperson, Shri Raveesh Kumar: As I said if things are available to us then we will come out with some response but it is important to understand under what circumstances and what kind of names have been shared, we are not privy to that information.

Question: Can you confirm or deny if India specific terrorists like Hafiz Saeed or Lakhavi, did these names emerge in Mr. Tillerson’s meeting with Mr. Ajit Doval or EAM because we are given to understand that specific names did not figure.

Official Spokesperson, Shri Raveesh Kumar: We have shared, in fact EAM’s press statement was very detailed. There were a couple of very strong paragraphs on the discussion between EAM and Secretary Tillerson on terrorism and beyond that there is nothing further which I can add at this stage.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2564
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Kashi » 15 Nov 2017 06:44

X-post from the Tracking India's Membership...thread

It appears that a formal offer was indeed made to Nehru for a seat at the UN P5 and Nehru turned down the "American bait" :roll:

When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UN

Letters between Nehru and India’s ambassador in the US shed light on his stand that while India was “certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council,” it would be dangerous for this to come at the cost of China.

:shock: :shock:

An excerpt from one of Nehru's letter to his sister whoa was the Indian ambassador to the US

In your letter you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the state department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council. I suppose that a crisis will come during the next sessions of the General Assembly of the UN on this issue. The people’s government of China is sending a full delegation there. If they fail to get in there will be trouble which might even result in the USSR and some other countries finally quitting the UN. That may please the State Department, but it would mean the end of the UN as we have known it. That would also mean a further drift towards war.


Do read the whole article

I wonder what other skeletons are hiding in the closet

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21887
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 15 Nov 2017 07:36

I post the below here and in the China thread because of its relevance.

Post-Doklam, India asserts itself in China’s backyard - Kallol Bhattacherjee, The Hindu
Displaying convergence of interests with the new quadrilateral grouping with U.S., Japan and Australia, India on Tuesday reached out to China’s backyard, addressing an array of issues ranging from the tension in the Korean peninsula to freedom of navigation and sought a crackdown on chemical weapons during the ASEAN and the East Asia summits. A high-level Indian official told The Hindu that New Delhi has emerged as a more dependable partner for South-East Asia following the Doklam faceoff with China, and indicated that the South-East Asian countries expect New Delhi to be assertive with Beijing. “The Doklam standoff was keenly observed by the countries in the SouthEast Asian region that have been absorbing the impact of China’s assertiveness. But the outcome of the Doklam crisis has shown that India has reached a stage where it can be a resilient strategic and defence partner for them,” said the official.

The explanation of India’s post-Doklam international image acquires significance in view of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s one-on-one meeting with Premier Li Keqiang that was held on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit on Tuesday.

Following the meeting the MEA spokesperson took to social media to announce that the meeting signified, “two neighbours in deep conversation.”

Elaborating on the counter-China angle, the high-level official said the Southeast Asian region had been facing uncertainties following the exit of President Barack Obama as he took visible interest in the region.

However, the latest visits by the leaders of the quadrilateral countries, including by the new U.S. President Donald Trump have once again assured support to these countries as they face China’s commercial and military domination.

In this context, he said the fundamental change in India’s foreign affairs is in its embrace of the big ticket issues of East Asia like the North Korean nuclear crisis as well.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared concerns of DPRK’s pursuit of missiles and nuclear weapons and called for complete verification and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. He also said that North Korea’s proliferation links must be investigated and the parties who have supported these unlawful programmes must be made accountable,” Preeti Saran, Secretary in charge of eastern ties in the Ministry of External Affairs said at a media briefing explaining India’s position.

The issue of North Korea’s has been mentioned in the press statement of the United States following first official level discussion of the ‘Quad’ held on 12 November here.

The anonymous Indian official said that taking up of North Korean threats was part of a new Indian set of concerns that also covers major global issues like terrorism by the Islamic State and its capability to inflict mass casualties, and tensions in the South China Sea that concern the world as well as India.

“The North Korean nuclear missiles are not just problematic for the U.S., but for the entire world, including us, as Pyongyang’s missiles are capable of hitting targets in different parts of the world,” said the diplomat.

The situation in the South China Sea also featured in the statement of Prime Minister Modi in the ASEAN who asked for upholding of the ‘rules based regional security architecture’, an expression often described to refer to China’s opposition to adhere to the UN laws of the seas (UNCLOS).

The official source elaborated that India remains concerned about China’s manmade structures in the South China Sea that are likely to create navigational problems and international friction and said, “As of now there is a jockeying for power between the US and China that is going on in South China Sea but in future we anticipate that identification (of vessels or aircraft) can be raised by the other (Chinese) side,” he said.

India also pushed for a total ban on chemical weapons in the region {a reference to North Korea which hasn't signed the Chemical Weapons Convention} and for an end to terrorist financing. “The biggest issue facing counter-terror efforts has been the inability of powerful countries to stop flow of funds to the terror groups,” said the diplomat elaborating that the agreements on terror financing, chemical weapons and de-radicalisation adopted at the East Asia Summit will help the region cope with the threat of terrorism effectively in future.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48113
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 29 Nov 2017 00:28

X-Post from UK thread....

A Nandy wrote:http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/11796-pm-modi-scripted-india-s-victory-over-uk-un

Countries against India:

it is Pakistan that has been devastated by India’s candidate prevailing over the UK’s Christopher Greenwood

Among the Asian countries, the most steadfast in defence of the British candidate was Japan, which to the end backed Christopher Greenwood in line with Tokyo’s policy of marching in lockstep with the victors of the 1939-45 global war. Another factor was the British royal family, which is close to the Japanese royal family. Indeed, several countries across the globe that have monarchs as titular heads of state—especially in the Arab states—backed the UK solely on the grounds of the latter being a monarchy like themselves.

As expected, both Australia as well as New Zealand put ethnic linkages first and stood by Greenwood over Bhandari to the last, although Canada under Justin Trudeau was more circumspect.

Beijing gave its diplomatic backing to the UK.

Finally, only China was left by the UK’s side, but even Beijing understood that backing the UNSC candidate over the UNGA’s favourite would damage its standing as a champion of the developing countries.

Besides the monarchies, another bloc that stood by the UK was Eastern Europe, where questions of ethnicity are still important.

Until pulled up by President Donald Trump himself, who has invested considerable effort in forging an alliance with India, the Permanent Mission of the United States in the UN worked daily in seeking the defeat of Bhandari. This was despite it being headed by Nikki Haley, whose earlier avatar of Namrata Randhawa was Indian in ethnicity. Ambassador Haley personally gave complete backing to Greenwood over her ethnic cousin Dalveer Bhandari, until the final stages, when it took a command from the White House to make her change her stance.

Among the factors that worked against Greenwood was that the jurist was an enthusiastic backer of that war, justifying on shaky legal grounds Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision to march behind Bush in launching the 2003 war that sent Iraq into chaos. This ever faithful “human poodle” of US policymakers was subsequently rewarded by a well-paying UN position in recognition of the way in which he followed Washington’s lead on the Iraq war without hesitation.

The UK judge’s politically motivated support for the Iraq war on specious grounds was disseminated extensively among UNGA members by numerous delegations, and played a role in most of the Muslim-majority countries ignoring the increasingly frantic efforts of GHQ Rawalpindi, acting through the civilian government in Pakistan, to secure the victory of the UK judge.


The victory of Dalveer Bhandari was the opposite of what took place in 1971 during the Bangladesh crisis, when almost the entire UNGA voted against India. In the ICJ episode, that was reversed, with almost the entire UNGA (183 members exactly) voting with the candidate enjoying the backing of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17827
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 29 Nov 2017 04:39

"You can't fool all the people all of the time...."!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests