End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jul 2009 07:45

RaviBg wrote:
So why did India go in for these US arms knowing fully well that it had to submit to these agreements?

Because beggars can be choosers.

They can choose not to go for US arms at any time and not be subject to any inspection.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Jul 2009 07:50

Hate to interrupt such a

fest, but can someone check...

What is US policy on getting EUVAs from other nations to which it sells weapon systems? Specifically:

1. Japan
2. Taiwan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. UQ
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Norway
9. Australia

Lockheed has already won contracts to build C-130Js for Norway, Canada, India, Qatar, and is still hoping to finalize additional deals with Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Australia, said one Air Force official.

If those ppl don't sign EUVA's then India should not. If those ppl do, and India is after all a SuperPower, then India should not have to.

But if India absolutely needs the items, and if all these ppl sign off on this thing, then it's basically no big deal. Another Cyclone-e-TeaCup with all the Energizer Bunnies going into resonance.

Which way is it?

Also, when India sells weapons to other nations, does India NOT require an EndUser Certificate? IMO, (and I am an expert omn the subject since I have read F. Forsyth's "Dogs of War") ALL international arms deals require an End User Certificate. Of course, not all sellers insist on going and visiting the weapons later in their new homes.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 08:08

Will some strategic minds aka chankian types answer this query (cross posting from prev us-indo relations thread):

Whats the big deal if India signs the EUM? So long as it does not buy critical/mass components of its defense hardware (MMRCA for ex), the americans can come and inspect all the C17s, Trentons they want. Expensive toys no doubt, but necessary to accommodate the big guy, while at the same time safeguarding indian needs.

Could it just be possible that the MRCA deal just went out of the U.S. basket? They'll probly be given huge compensations elsewhere - a fleet of chinooks, C-17s, perhaps even a few more P8s, Trenton types, nuclear reactors etc. But the really big and critical stuff will probly go to fra/russia thereby maintaining freedom where it matters most.

What am I missing?

CM.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jul 2009 08:13

N^3,

THIS whole problem started with ---------- drum role ----------------- Pakis!!!! Because the Pakis, true islamists, sold/used US supplied Stingers, meant ONLY to be used against the Russians, ONLY in Afghanistan, to other Pakis/Jihadis.

So, yes, prior to 1999 no one signed anything. After that they all had to sign. Check out the URLs posted by Gerard and me - there is a break up, by region (of course Asia we know who goofed up).

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 08:14

narayanan wrote:Hate to interrupt such a fest, but can someone check...

What is US policy on getting EUVAs from other nations to which it sells weapon systems? Specifically:

1. Japan
2. Taiwan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. UQ
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Norway
9. Australia

Lockheed has already won contracts to build C-130Js for Norway, Canada, India, Qatar, and is still hoping to finalize additional deals with Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Australia, said one Air Force official.
If those ppl don't sign EUVA's then India should not. If those ppl do, and India is after all a SuperPower, then India should not have to.

But if India absolutely needs the items, and if all these ppl sign off on this thing, then it's basically no big deal. Another Cyclone-e-TeaCup with all the Energizer Bunnies going into resonance.

Which way is it?

Also, when India sells weapons to other nations, does India NOT require an EndUser Certificate? IMO, (and I am an expert omn the subject since I have read F. Forsyth's "Dogs of War") ALL international arms deals require an End User Certificate. Of course, not all sellers insist on going and visiting the weapons later in their new homes.

Could this be an IPR type issue such as the one that was a sticking point between india/russia? If their biggest concern is tot to 3rd parties, whats the problem in signing it?

CM.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 21 Jul 2009 08:47

I think it is absolutely essential for the US to have and End-user Monitoring agreement. End-user monitoring agreement means more jobs for the national transportation and safety board and a fair and square opportunity to save the names and reputation. It will mean a lot of money changing hands as congress and senate conduct hearings over compliance each year. correlation functions between compliance elsewhere and monitoring here will be suddenly discovered, providing endless entertainment right here on BRF.

And, there is no shame. We can produce copies of the products under a technology transfer agreement and call them made in India. That, our golden contract weapon, trashes this, like other agreements, rendering them at best minor inconveniences in the nation's march to sure shot peace and prosperity.

S

ppatil · Post by **ppatil** » 21 Jul 2009 09:23

narayanan wrote:Hate to interrupt such a fest, but can someone check...

What is US policy on getting EUVAs from other nations to which it sells weapon systems? Specifically:

1. Japan
2. Taiwan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Pakistan
5. UQ
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Norway
9. Australia

Lockheed has already won contracts to build C-130Js for Norway, Canada, India, Qatar, and is still hoping to finalize additional deals with Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Australia, said one Air Force official.
If those ppl don't sign EUVA's then India should not. If those ppl do, and India is after all a SuperPower, then India should not have to.

But if India absolutely needs the items, and if all these ppl sign off on this thing, then it's basically no big deal. Another Cyclone-e-TeaCup with all the Energizer Bunnies going into resonance.

Which way is it?

Also, when India sells weapons to other nations, does India NOT require an EndUser Certificate? IMO, (and I am an expert omn the subject since I have read F. Forsyth's "Dogs of War") ALL international arms deals require an End User Certificate. Of course, not all sellers insist on going and visiting the weapons later in their new homes.

1. Japan - US has military bases
2. Taiwan - 1979 Taiwan relations act
3. Saudi Arabia - US has military bases
4. Pakistan - no choice since its allah ke naam pe de de
5. UQ - Member of ABCA and Nato
6. Israel - Duh
7. Canada - Member of ABCA and Nato
8. Norway - Member of Nato
9. Australia - Member of ABCA

Add South Korea to that list.

EUVA is just another piece of paper to all these countries since they are under Unkil's protection(including nuclear umbrella). So it does not matter if these countries have zero weapons or non working weapons. Buying weapons from US is a way of paying rent for Unkil's protection services.

If you want the same for India then lets go ahead and sign EUVA. While we are at it why not sign NPT, FMCT and any other treaty that unkil wants us to. We can then dismantle our nukes, allow unkil to have bases in india and control our foreign policy while we concentrate on the most important job of achieving 19% growth as envisioned by MMS.

Are powers that be at BRF trying to put a positive spin on this or is it just me?

PeeEss - This is my first

, so please forgive me if I have gone overboard.

JohnWalker · Post by **JohnWalker** » 21 Jul 2009 10:01

Friends,

Isn't there a difference between an "End User Agreement" and "End-Use Monitoring"? (all of the media reports are using the term "End-User"). But, It looks like the "real" thing is "End-Use Monitoring", which in fact can include definition of "End Use".

I believe we all will agree to the "(to be signed) agreement" if it is just for protecting sensitive technology like the "Missile warning suite" on our VVIP Jets. But the question is, is it really just that? We may have to wait till (if) we get a chance to see the text..

-JW

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 21 Jul 2009 10:05

EUVA is just another piece of paper to all these countries since they are under Unkil's protection(including nuclear umbrella). So it does not matter if these countries have zero weapons or non working weapons. Buying weapons from US is a way of paying rent for Unkil's protection services.

All BS. Why dream up this with no basis. Why did the US send in help in '62 when we weren't part of SEATO/CENTO. There is no question the US would come to India's help directly if attacked by the Dragon and indirectly wrt TSP, since no need for direct action. Just the same as with the other ABCA or other pals. The stakes are too high to allow things to go downhill in India for the US, after TSP is totally in the toilet. This SDRE complex is really

. India isn't Poland and this isn't WWII.

Imagine selling Brahmos to a third party w/o EULA and it ends up in TSP.

No point repeating 1950s/60's (Nehru and Dulles) story again in 2009. EUVA never stopped anyone from using the weapons from their intended purpose. Besides India got some concessions in the language, totally unheard of in the past. Its not like the US would want to do a end verification in the middle of a war or something.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 10:09

Why did the US send in help in '62 when we weren't part of SEATO/CENTO

oops my bad... can you enlighten us about this new Chankian development ? btw nice to know US helping us to on our way to err....LOSS was it ...

Btw have you read the EUVA ?

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 21 Jul 2009 10:19

Why did the US send in help in '62 when we weren't part of SEATO/CENTO
oops my bad... can you enlighten us about this new Chankian development ? btw nice to know US helping us to on our way to err....LOSS was it ...

Btw have you read the EUVA ?

I can't start educating you on history. Sorry, not my job.

The EUVA is a standard document and India got a few concessions. Do you read the EULA when you load your software, I don't either.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 10:22

I can't start educating you on history. Sorry, not my job.
You are not doing any while posting on BRF either ...

Do you read the EULA when you load your software, I don't either.
Nice Zardari and Gilani will be proud...LMU induction is working I say...

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 10:52

I have some queries on the EUM and MEA's communiqué.

1. What are the bilateral relations that we are strengthening?
2. The statement reads - leveraging the strong foundation of economic and social linkages between our respective people, private sectors, and institutions. Recognizing the new heights achieved in the India - U.S. relationship – what is this ‘social linkage’? The economic can be understood because of our vast and growing market, it Is lucrative for the US.
3. This is interesting. It means a lot:
SEEKING A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS
India and the United States share a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. With this goal in sight, Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton agreed to move ahead in the Conference on Disarmament towards a non-discriminatory, internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. India and the United States will also cooperate to prevent nuclear terrorism and address the challenges of global nuclear proliferation. A high-level bilateral dialogue will be established to enhance cooperation on these issues.

Will the US also allow verification by India of the US Missile Cut Off Treaty? Or is it one sided? Who all will be signatory to this Treaty? Pakistan and China too? If not, it is mere bromo paper!
4. Why is the issue of End User Verification not mentioned in the MEA communiqué?

Or have I missed something?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 10:59

The US sent marginal military equipment in 1962 because of the US foreign policy philosophy of containing Communism.

The US did it for self interest so that a democracy is not bowled over.

If India keeled over, then the two most populous nations would prove to be a great threat to the US in addition to USSR.

There are no permanent friends or enemies, there are merely permanent interests!

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 21 Jul 2009 11:03

I can't start educating you on history. Sorry, not my job.
You are not doing any while posting on BRF either ...

Do you read the EULA when you load your software, I don't either.
Nice Zardari and Gilani will be proud...LMU induction is working I say...

Why don't you stick to the Photography thread and do your AoA's in Fundoo land.

It would take too much bandwidth to educate you from Independence to 2009. The reason India lost in '62 had nothing to do with the US, they came to our aid after the show was over and the chinese withdrew. TSP has been asking for GUBO as a beggar nation, a comparison with India or a equal-equal is something the US gave up atleats 10 years ago. But some here continue to believe it to be true.

Since you apparently live in the US, try reading up about US/UK relationship just before Pearl Harbor, it will give you an insight into how the US refused to help UK, until it was almost too late. Does that mean that the UK was SDRE or India is UK today? It is all about US interests, and US interest is in a strong India. There will be several hiccups and Enrons along the way, but turning down the EUVA would have meant a real souring of relationship. It dosen't mean India has to buy US weapons, just buy what is best.

If I read Obama correctly, he just dosen't want nukes for any nation, including the US, but he can't undo it in his lifetime.

rkirankr · Post by **rkirankr** » 21 Jul 2009 11:07

Another 5 years to go for this guvernment. A weak opposition, I do not know what else will be given away.

Sharm at egypt
Now GUBO to Unkil
Next what, NPT, CTBT etc etc

... to infinity

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 21 Jul 2009 11:08

I for one, is in favour of signing an agreement. It clarfies a lot of things to both sides. The US has its own set of reasons for insisiting on such an agreement. Signing up does not mean buying US arms.

All it does is that it gives a clear picture to the GOI when comparing systems that it wants to purchase. This is something that will be factored in while making that decision. It all then depends on the deal. If India is in a position to buy or place a large order, and there are competing and comparable systems available, the USG can, if it wants to, strike an exception term, so that the it counters the effect of this agreement in a competitive scenario.

So it gives both governments a clear framework. Without going into details, it looks like the USG is keen to get into the defence market called India. It is going to be one of the best growing ones with a lot of scalability. Towards this, the USG is also willing to negotiate with India something that can be an extension of its standard EUVA or EUMA. It shows that they would rather have access to this important market. India in its turn needs to ensure that it has recourse to the best systems if it wants to exercise.

While other countries may not have such agreeements, they have other strings (e.g. Groshkov). In the overall mix of things, the strategic intent of GOI must be to source all strategic, force multiplier arms internally. This requires policy, funding, time and money. The GOI, across different regimes, have been working on this. The NDA regime has opened up the Defence Sector. It also started talking to the US on specific systems. At the same time, the UPA regime has been trying to re-organise DRDO and OFB, get more teeth to the policy, and go in for deeper joint development with many countries including Russia, Israel, France and UK. It would be foolish not to do so.

I would urge gentle readers not to get carried away by sensational reporting and view everything that the US proposes with a jaundiced eye. It pays to be vigilant, objective and practical in these things. Trust, but verify - is a nice maxim and it is one that resonates well with the US too!

As usual, just a ramble from a non-expert, take it for it is worth.

oh one more minor point, it is easy to dismiss a criticism as a whine, but when the reality bites and the criticism comes true, it is difficult to swallow. Just wanted point that out as there is a tendency to dismiss criticism to "favoured" positions and personalities as whines in this forum nowadays. Must guard against this bad habit. ok now I await the stones that is to be hurled against me for stating the politically incorrect thing as a tailpiece here.

negi · Post by **negi** » 21 Jul 2009 11:12

oh one more minor point, it is easy to dismiss a criticism as a whine, but when the reality bites and the criticism comes true, it is difficult to swallow

Yes we'd rather be known and made fun of as

rakshaks as against chankian yindoos being caught with pants down later.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 11:13

An End-user certificate, or EUC, is a document used in international sales of weapons and ammunition to certify that the buyer is the final recipient of the materials, and is not planning on transferring the materials to another party. EUCs are required by many governments to restrict the flow of the materials to embargoed states. Illegal, International arms dealers will resort to smuggling arms in crates of other commercial merchandise in order to avoid the paperwork of EUC's.

This is understandable.

But why Verification?

That means under the garb of 'verification' snoop on Indian defence establishments, units and plans?

Sell out on Indian sovreignty.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 11:15

Negi and Anant D,

No more of the fracas, please!

I will delete your posts if it continues!

And then use the 'iron fist' with the velvet gloves off!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 11:25

NEW DELHI: India and the United States are on the verge of finalising a standard “End User Verification Agreement” (EUVA), central to all defence deals between the two countries, instead of negotiating separate agreements for procurements.

The U.S. is keen that besides the EUVA, India also signs the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), say sources in the Defence Ministry...............

“While we understand the U.S. concern for their law, the assets we have cannot be intrusively inspected without reason,” was how officials in the Ministry characterised this sensitive aspect of the agreement.

As is central in all draft agreements, it is the issue of getting the text in a form agreeable to both sides is the key. The clauses include how to define “onsite inspection” and how and where such verification, if required, could be conducted.

The officials say that while India offered to provide inventory and accountability records of the sensitive equipment to be mounted on assets acquired by it, the Americans want that besides these two records, the clauses specify opportunity to physically inspect the equipment.

India does not have such verification agreement with any other country. It provides a certificate that the equipment procured was being used for the purpose it was intended to......

The Defence Ministry is wary of allowing inspections at bases or forward areas, where some of the equipment could be in use.....

Another point of negotiation is that once the standard text is signed, it will remain frozen and cannot be subjected to any future amendments to the U.S. laws with retrospective effect.

India has already signed verification agreements before the supply of equipment on troop-landing ship INS Jalashwa (USS Trenton) and Boeing Business Jets for VVIP travel.

EUVA

To imagine end user verification for a Landing ship! As if it is loaded with a whole array of sensitive equipment!

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 21 Jul 2009 11:27

Sharm at egypt
Now GUBO to Unkil
Next what, NPT, CTBT etc etc
... to infinity

I'm a real believer in the party that lost the last election to the Congress. However, they seem to be outsmarting TSP for sure.

In terms of Sharm, the real sharm was not dropping a few LGB's after 26/11. But no one complained enough and the Kangress won!

Re NPT/CTBT, hasn't Krishna openly said very recently that India isn't signing these! Why do we jump off the deep edge every time?

I don't understand the GUBO here, when the US didn't know till the very last minute what we were signing. And whatever we signed was a compromise in favor of India every time. There is no document that prevented a country from doing something in national interest, at a later time. If US renegs so can India. Why do we always see this as either one or the other in GUBO?

All I'm doing is reading the news from various sources, and its all there.

Someone asked if Ive read the EUVA; all we know was that concessions were made like the verification can be made at a place (and possibly time) convenient to India, maybe even in a third country! What more can you ask for. Pakistans F-16's are completely neutered and have 24 hour verification with US personnel at the bases. Now thats not what India signed, it would be something similar to Taiwan/Japan/Singapore.

Yet we think the sky has fallen down and lap up all the dork media reports from both the US and India regarding "bowing down" etc.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 11:33

The US personnel in Pakistan has to be accepted by them since it is US money that is keeping them afloat. Pakistan is in the ICU on life support with US money!

India can keep afloat with the US.

That is the difference is what I feel.

In 1962, when the US gave equipment as 'aid', it was under the understanding that it would be used only in the Eastern sector and not against Pakistan. There was no verification. India complied with the instruction!

It was aid. Therefore, it was in other words, US equipment.

Now, we are buying with hard cash. So, why the verification?

It is enjoyable to see the hyperbole - strategic partnership, when at every step, we are responding to the US demands!

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jul 2009 11:43

US clause not new, bid now to cut red tape
.
.
.
The current urgency for the end-use verification agreement (EUVA) is driven by two factors.

First, big US companies (such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing) are worried that unless an agreement is reached, they may not be able to grab military business from India — such as an Indian Air Force order of $12 billion-plus for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft.

India is likely to import about $30 billion (Rs 1.44 lakh crore) worth of weapons and platforms in the next five years.

Second, the Indian military is also in a hurry to diversify its sources of procurement. Traditionally, India has been dependent on Russia and, even now, more than 60 per cent of its military hardware is of Soviet/Russian origin.

Like the US, the European countries and Israel are also very strong competitors for Indian military deals.

The current discussions between India and the US were for an “omnibus” EUVA, at India’s insistence, that will cover all future imports of US military equipment and, therefore, do away with the bureaucratic delay involved in negotiating the agreement for each transaction.

A sovereign country can consider the conditions under an EUVA “intrusive”. As a source in the Indian defence establishment involved in the negotiations put it: “Ideally, we would not like to sign such an agreement at all. But we understand the US has its laws and expect that they will understand our concerns.”

The inspections of military equipment that the US exports are required under its Arms Export Control Act and its Foreign Assistance Act. The laws were further strengthened in the 1990s after the US could not account for the exports of Stinger shoulder-fired missiles channelled to the Afghan Mujahideen through Pakistan in their war against Soviet occupation.

In course of time, the Stinger came to be used against US forces post-2001.

The US also implements conditions of end-use verification to prevent exports of its military equipment to third countries that may not be friendly to it. In February this year, at the Bangalore air show, the director of the US Pentagon’s Defence Security Cooperation Agency said the US has such agreements with about 80 countries.

US inspectors, sometimes called “Tiger Teams”, verify the use of weapons and military platforms that have been exported under two programmes called “Blue Lantern” and “Golden Sentry”.

Under the Blue Lantern programme, inspectors verify equipment sold by a company to the buyer — for instance in the case of P8I Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft that India has contracted with Boeing.

Under the more intrusive “Golden Sentry” mechanism that governs exports under the Foreign Military Sales — or government-to-government — deals, US inspectors will want to verify the use of US military equipment from “cradle-to-grave”, that is, from the time of their despatch to their delivery, to their use and to their eventual disposal. This requires “physical onsite verification” and makes security officials in the Indian establishment touchy.

Indian officials say that they can agree to physical verification or a verification through an examination of records. For instance, in the VVIP Boeing Business Jets, they claim that the self-protection suites of the aircraft that the President and Prime Minister fly, among others, will be dismantled before US inspectors board them.

But, as in the case of artillery locating radars, India will not agree to inspections in sensitive zones such as those near the Line of Control at Jammu and Kashmir.

Among the major projects/equipment that have been delivered by the US for which New Delhi has accepted the conditions of end-use monitoring — despite its reluctance — on a case-by-case basis are:

1)12 AN/TPQ 137 Firefinder weapon-locating radars (made by Raytheon) contracted for $146 million in April 2002 (by the NDA government).

2) USS Trenton, now the INS Jalashva, landing platform dock, sold by the US to the Indian Navy in 2006 for about $48.44 million.

3) Three Boeing Business Jets for VVIP transports with the Indian Air Force headquarters communication squadron contracted for about $937 million plus an additional $40 million for self-protection suites. The aircraft were delivered and are now in use.

4) Six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules transport aircraft for special operations contracted in 2008 for $1 billion.

(All the above are under the “Golden Sentry” programme.)

5) Eight Boeing P8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft contracted for the Indian Navy for about $2.2 billion in January this year and selected through a competition in which Boeing pipped EADS Casa’s Airbus 319. (under the Blue Lantern programme).

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 11:48

shiv wrote: Where is the difficulty in understanding this? Does it get so difficult to swallow one's ego and come down from a high horse imagining that India is somewhere way up there with the big boys. India is not. The sooner we know our place in the world the better. It is only when we think we can talk to the US as equals that we have to beat our breasts and wail

Ah Shiv at his Piskological best.

But then Shiv, even when we were the Bhooka Nanga India, Shastri (a much more soft spoken and diminutive man than those today who seek honor on that count) stood up and said that India will go hungry if it needs to but chart its independent course.

I guess that spirit is now long dead, and the EUM is just but a burial.

For those who understand Hindi, this from Gulal come to mind.
Sarfarsohi ki tammanna

"Hath kee khadi banane ka Zamana lad gaya, ab to chaddi bhee hamaree silti engliso ke mil me hain"

The time for making Khadi is now past, not even our underwear gets made in English mills.

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 21 Jul 2009 11:55

All the hyperbole about strategic relationship etc is only for consumption in India, since thats what we want to hear. There is hardly any news of this in the US, maybe an article on the 3 page or a 1 minute clip on radio.

The true test of the relationship will be when we tell them we don't need the hyperbole, just some action. But they could just the same say that to India. It is strictly for Indian DDM, IMO. The real hardwork was done in the previous US administration and we actually saw reports in the news in the US occasionally.

This administration in the US is still new, lets wait and see. So far nothing really bad or anti-India. Just some statements that made one wonder Big O's intentions. Hillary's trip was a definite plus. I think MMS' trip in November (the first state visit under this administration) will be interesting. Just a few critical hurdles remain, and I don't mean CTBT/NPT/FMCT etc.

These military sales and powerplant sales, will mean a lot of work/jobs in India too, and will put India in a much better position to sustain growth and remain free of wars.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jul 2009 11:56

Lets wait for the actual draft of the agreement before jumping on to "sell out of sovereignty" argumnts..All countries buying equipment from the US sign up on this, including NATO allies..In that respect, all these countries would have sold their sovereignties to the US!!

The fact that the US is prepared to go through draft after agonising draft just goes to show how much they are willing to bend themselves...International relations are not a one-way street...

there are some reports that talk about the final EUVA being ok with verification in places determined by India, at India's convenience of time...Take teh example of the C130...India decides that the place for "verification" would be Sulur..So all C130s are taken to sulurs, an aircraft takes the US inspectors to the airfield, preferably @ 45 degrees of summer, they do the inspection, and the aircraft takes a one way flight back to the US....In practical terms, most EUV is not even done physicaly, its in terms of reports..Physical verification is but an "option", and if they choose to exercise the option, the above methodology can be used for pretty much anything!

If there is something that is not easily transportable, and a physical verification would open us up to snooping etc, we should siomply factor that in our purchase decision!

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 12:01

somnath wrote:Lets wait for the actual draft of the agreement before jumping on to "sell out of sovereignty" argumnts..All countries buying equipment from the US sign up on this, including NATO allies..In that respect, all these countries would have sold their sovereignties to the US!!

The fact that the US is prepared to go through draft after agonising draft just goes to show how much they are willing to bend themselves...International relations are not a one-way street...

That does make some sense. Dunno much about how EUVAs work, so will leave the rest.

CM

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 21 Jul 2009 12:01

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote: Where is the difficulty in understanding this? Does it get so difficult to swallow one's ego and come down from a high horse imagining that India is somewhere way up there with the big boys. India is not. The sooner we know our place in the world the better. It is only when we think we can talk to the US as equals that we have to beat our breasts and wail
Ah Shiv at his Piskological best.

But then Shiv, even when we were the Bhooka Nanga India, Shastri (a much more soft spoken and diminutive man than those today who seek honor on that count) stood up and said that India will go hungry if it needs to but chart its independent course.

I guess that spirit is now long dead, and the EUM is just but a burial.

For those who understand Hindi, this from Gulal come to mind.
Sarfarsohi ki tammanna

"Hath kee khadi banane ka Zamana lad gaya, ab to chaddi bhee hamaree silti engliso ke mil me hain"

The time for making Khadi is now past, not even our underwear gets made in English mills.

Fortunately, India has moved far far away from the times where "standing up" would be an end to itself..That was the position of a fledgling country struggling to supplement its claims of moral superiority with anything of material substance..Today's India an afford to play the dirty game just the way the great powers do, maybe not with as much "weight", but we have the right to play alright....

Charting an "independent" course is nothing but empty rhetoric (of the type we use to do in the '60s and '70s) if it doesn't achieve substantive national objectives...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:11

somnath wrote: Charting an "independent" course is nothing but empty rhetoric (of the type we use to do in the '60s and '70s) if it doesn't achieve substantive national objectives...

Absolutely, the 60s and the 70s were all empty rhetoric which achieved nothing for India.

But then Somnath, I have seen your views on the forum, and I dare say, I dont think you will think differently. It has to do as Shiv said thinking about what is your acceptance level for India's status (and working towards that goal even if long and hard instead of making compromises)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:17

Cain Marko wrote:
somnath wrote:Lets wait for the actual draft of the agreement before jumping on to "sell out of sovereignty" argumnts..All countries buying equipment from the US sign up on this, including NATO allies..In that respect, all these countries would have sold their sovereignties to the US!!

The fact that the US is prepared to go through draft after agonising draft just goes to show how much they are willing to bend themselves...International relations are not a one-way street...
That does make some sense. Dunno much about how EUVAs work, so will leave the rest.

CM

We heard the same about the nuke deal too, lets wait and see. Well since none of us actually are in GoI thats all we can do. But the writing is on the wall.

Its not going to be pretty.

Anyway, it makes sense to talk of things to be because when things are as they are, thats it anyway eh.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:20

AnantD wrote:These military sales and powerplant sales, will mean a lot of work/jobs in India too, and will put India in a much better position to sustain growth and remain free of wars.

Actually for some reason they remind me of "Native Americans selling their land to the white man for a few trinkets" but that is just me I suppose.

Meanwhile folks need to understand that US policy is straightforward as far its main interests and thrusts are concerned Obama and Bush are the same from Indian POV and actually are following fairly straightforward policies with minor nuanced difference.

amit · Post by **amit** » 21 Jul 2009 12:28

I really don't understand.

On the one hand if you go through the Military forum, everyone agrees that US has the best military technology in the world - especially in the really high tech areas like for eg AESA radars.

Yet there is a hue and cry if India takes steps to acquire some of these technologies.

EUVM is a part of US law and there's no way the US govt can waive that law for India. The efforts of the past few years has been to find a way around this hurdle and the current talks shows that there's a sense of urgency on the part of the US because the MRCA contract is coming up for awarding. And the hurry is on the part of the AmeriKhans and not India, otherwise how do you explain the US Secretary of State - the effective No3 in the US government coming for negotiation and not some State Department lackey or some General who's been put out to pasture?

And as it's been pointed out that no pact has been signed yet, only some differences have been narrowed. If, as some reports suggest, that the verification will be at a time and place of India's choosing including third countries if India so desires, then why this migraine?

Folks get real. As someone pointed out above in politics and International Relation there's no permanent enemy nor permanent friends. So India can't just not afford not to engage the US in military matters.

What's more bad? Having a EUVM with the US which could potentially allow us to buy US equipment (it will kick in only if we do, in case you forgot) or seeing the French selling us stuff and then selling equally advanced stuff to the Pakis? Or the Russians selling to China?

I'm sorry this regular whine that India's interests are being sold and India is becoming a lackey of this power and that power and doing Gubo etc is becoming boring.

When the NDA govt signed the EUVM for the weapons locating radars - which incidentally sit on sensitive locations near the border - did they sell India's sovereignty to the US? Has India's military secrets been compromised over the several years that have passed since that particular acquisition? The answer is NO.

Or does that only happen when MMS signs something or even opens discussions?

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 12:38

Sanku wrote:We heard the same about the nuke deal too, lets wait and see. Well since none of us actually are in GoI thats all we can do. But the writing is on the wall.

Its not going to be pretty.

Anyway, it makes sense to talk of things to be because when things are as they are, thats it anyway eh.

So I take it you feel the nuke deal is a capitulation as well. Why? In my limited understanding of the issue (I simply couldn't follow all of that massive thread on BR, it was too much);
some of india's current reactors are to be exposed to inspections, plus all new ones will also be subjected to this. But the core reactors that drive weapons program are untouched, all fuel going here (if it comes from within india) is beyond the sight of prying eyes. IOWs, if in the past india used x qnties of fuel for all its needs/reactors, now that entire amount can be diverted to the strategic sites. Moreover, india gets a bunch more reactors only the fuel there (which comes from foreign sources) has to go towards non military uses.

Sounds like a decent deal. What am I missing?

As far as the writing being on the wall goes, I dare say, it has been the case for the last 20, perhaps even 60 years. IOWs, a BIG disaster is on its way for India (and the world), l simply see no way to avoid it. Guess the seers, scriptures etc were not amiss in saying that there will be much destruction before the end. I can see JDAMS going off in India in the near future, perhaps even in the U.S and Japan, Europe. A real alliance and victory will take place only after that happens I am afraid. JMT.

CM

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Jul 2009 12:43

Where you are missing the issue is that the EUVM does not stop at the civilian nuclear reactors!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:47

amit wrote:I really don't understand.

On the one hand if you go through the Military forum, everyone agrees that US has the best military technology in the world - especially in the really high tech areas like for eg AESA radars.

Yet there is a hue and cry if India takes steps to acquire some of these technologies.

Amit; having technology and acquiring it at our terms and conditions are two very different things. Also the question is yes US has the very best technology, how much behind is the second best though?

We have over last 60 years mated the "second best" technology with our doctrines to produce spectacular results (too many examples) against the very best technology and training.

And all this time we have lived an independent existence too boot.

So getting the technology is frankly not a big deal. Having a world vision where all aspects gel together including acquisitions is.

EUVM is a part of US law and there's no way the US govt can waive that law for India.

I am sorry, thats Dhimmi thinking, if US has a idiot law as far as India is concerened it should be there problem

The question that I would like to see debated is "do we really want to lose India as friends due to these silly laws made because of Pakistan" lets have a special relationship.

And the hurry is on the part of the AmeriKhans and not India, otherwise how do you explain the US Secretary of State - the effective No3 in the US government coming for negotiation and not some State Department lackey or some General who's been put out to pasture?

Which makes it more telling that Americans are the ones hurrying because they need us, yet GoI is the one taking weak stands and capitulating.

I'm sorry this regular whine that India's interests are being sold and India is becoming a lackey of this power and that power and doing Gubo etc is becoming boring.

May be, but it does not change that it is
1) Real
2) A siginficant departure from what Indian manifest destiny was agreed to be.

When the NDA govt signed the EUVM for the weapons locating radars - which incidentally sit on sensitive locations near the border - did they sell India's sovereignty to the US? Has India's military secrets been compromised over the several years that have passed since that particular acquisition? The answer is NO.

This is a good point we need to see what exact EUMs were signed before and now.

Also note that there is a difference between a blanket signature and per deal negotiation. No one was crying foul at Trenton either (although Navy and serious concerns too)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:50

Cain Marko wrote: So I take it you feel the nuke deal is a capitulation as well. Why? In my limited understanding of the issue (I simply couldn't follow all of that massive thread on BR, it was too much);

I followed all posts on all threads for that, and I basically think it is a capitulation because
1) Arun_S says so

More seriously
1) Too much given from our side for too little
2) Drastic variation in what MMS promised after J18 and what we signed and whats happening now (now ENR etc)
3) A secondary status with respect to US and other NWS, compare their 123 with China for ex.
4) Built in Torjans/its a lakshyagrah

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 21 Jul 2009 12:52

RayC wrote:Where you are missing the issue is that the EUVM does not stop at the civilian nuclear reactors!

No kidding? They can actually come and inspect the weapons producing reactors as well? Dammit I thought there was a clear separation between civilian and military and that the military assets were off the table. That is ridiculous, can 't believed it was signed. It is a capitulation.

CM.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 21 Jul 2009 12:52

amit wrote:I really don't understand.

On the one hand if you go through the Military forum, everyone agrees that US has the best military technology in the world - especially in the really high tech areas like for eg AESA radars.

Yet there is a hue and cry if India takes steps to acquire some of these technologies.

Are the steps being taken for India's interests or for satisfying American egos? Is it a relation of two sovereign countries, buying and selling arms or is it the relationship of massa and slave

EUVM is a part of US law and there's no way the US govt can waive that law for India. The efforts of the past few years has been to find a way around this hurdle and the current talks shows that there's a sense of urgency on the part of the US because the MRCA contract is coming up for awarding. And the hurry is on the part of the AmeriKhans and not India, otherwise how do you explain the US Secretary of State - the effective No3 in the US government coming for negotiation and not some State Department lackey?

Let me see your rationale. They want our money and then want us to change as they wish? If the EULA is so important to them, it can be talked after the MRCA. Because THEY cant sell it to us with their current laws, they want us to open up our bases for their visits?

If EULA is important for them, all I will say, wait after the MRCA only.

And as it's been pointed out that no pact has been signed yet, only some differences have been narrowed. If, as some reports suggest, that the verification will be at a time and place of India's choosing including third countries if India so desires, then why this migraine?

migraine because their checks will mean they will get knowledge of our bases, our deployment schedules will be hampered, military alignments and strategies will be known.

For eg: if you see more artilery in one section than the other, the artillery base having more number of X type of shells than other- this type of knowledge in the hands of a decent military person can easily enable to backtrack and find out our strategies.

Folks get real. As someone pointed out above in politics and International Relation there's no permanent enemy nor permanent friends. So India can't just not afford not to engage the US in military matters.

There are three levels of engagement terms. our, their and equal. Which is it going to be? EULA is simply engagement on their terms.

What's more bad? Having a EUVM with the US which could potentially allow us to buy US equipment (it will kick in only if we do, in case you forgot) or seeing the French selling us stuff and then selling equally advanced stuff to the Pakis? Or the Russians selling to China?

Holy cr*p, Pakistan doesnt have F-16s, right

I'm sorry this regular whine that India's interests are being sold and India is becoming a lackey of this power and that power and doing Gubo etc is becoming boring.

When India does nothing against Pakistan even after Mumbai terrorist attack, I felt the same feeling

When the NDA govt signed the EUVM for the weapons locating radars - which incidentally sit on sensitive locations near the border - did they sell India's sovereignty to the US?

Or does that only happen when MMS signs something or even opens discussions?

What were the exact terms? What were the other options which we had? MMS bought Jalashwa, was there this much hue and cry.

Instead of the MMS fanboys crying out wolf everytime, even though MMS is directly putting many Indian interests at stake. They should try to judge everything issue by issue, removing those fanboy glasses.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 12:56

ravi_ku jee, economist types stick together. There are too issues
1) Fanboy
2) Fellow economist love fest.