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

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 22:41

Hello Moderators and forumites;

This is the first thread that I have ever started on BRF, and as such I hope it survives both the IB4TLs as well as the Moderator scissor hands

As India capitulates on the EUM agreement

India bows, lets US monitor high-tech defence purchases

It merely adds another step in the by now long foretold series of steps where India broke with her well agreed on interests and moved towards actions as the US of A had long wanted India to do.

The other previous actions on this front include
1) Accepting the US of A mandated nuclear program with a riders which reduce strategic space.
2) Accepting the US mandated direction towards India Pakistan interaction with the climb down just before the Clinton visit at Sharm Al Sheik http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5025

This thread is intended to not look at different facts piece meal but look at the complete picture driving a huge change in Indian behavior.

The idea is to
1) Understand the forces making the changes
2) Understand the impact of the changes to present
3) Understand how the changes will play out in 10+ year timeframes.

Hoping for a real honest and truthful discussion here (not to mention civil)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2009 22:50

discuss here or in mil ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 22:51

Well I suppose it will soon have lot of non Mil angles coming in, so this might be a better place. However Mil gets more eyeballs.

tripathi · Post by **tripathi** » 20 Jul 2009 22:56

I think this thread must survive. As we see history repeating itself.India got capitulated with each invasion and this capitulation also came under invasion of different kind.each time india capitulated in past or now it were always its elites who sold off india for their own interest.like jaichand and rana sanga.future generation will remember this capitulation of india as the reason india losing its freedom.sorry for being alarmist but wat mms and elites r doing it clearly like a sell off.each time india capitulated from the power of strength.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 20 Jul 2009 22:57

Sanku - you may want to change the spelling of "interests" in the title.

I am afraid this thread will become a whine-fest

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Jul 2009 23:00

Mickey MacMohan will make us the 51st State!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jul 2009 23:04

RayC wrote:Mickey MacMohan will make us the 51st State!!

Hope he does. Then we won't need H1, any more end user agreements, and perhaps even MMS can become US Prez.

Of course that will mean that Pakistan will become the next state too. Hmmmmm....

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 20 Jul 2009 23:09

Soon this thread will de-generate into whine-fest with all sorts of absuses heaped on MMS and SG.
He was elected by people of India and he merely represnts the will of Indians atleast the majority if not all. If majority wants to end up as 52nd state of USA, so be it.
Unfortunately Isn't that what democracy is all about.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Jul 2009 23:12

VikasRaina wrote:Soon this thread will de-generate into whine-fest with all sorts of absuses heaped on MMS and SG.
He was elected by people of India and he merely represnts the will of Indians atleast the majority if not all. If majority wants to end up as 52nd state of USA, so be it.
Unfortunately Isn't that what democracy is all about.

Really? The majority Indian elected MMS to be thier PM?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 23:15

News Insight. net

Hillary Challenges

Hillary challenges
On the arriving US secretary of state's controversial agenda, there is nothing for India to discuss, says N.V.Subramanian.

17 July 2009: Hillary Clinton, the United States' secretary of state, will be in the country for five days discussing, among other things, "strategic challenges" to the bilateral relations with India. What are those so-called "strategic challenges"? In a sentence, the US wants India to accept NPT, CTBT and sooner than later FMCT. If the Manmohan Singh government is in any mind to defend India's strategic interests, then there would be nothing to talk with Clinton in the five days of her visit.

The Barack Obama administration backstabbed Manmohan Singh during the G-8 summit when it pressured the other member states to ban ENR exports to non-NPT countries which principally means India. This brought the prime minister under added pressure during his France visit to ensure that the French would keep to their full nuclear fuel-cycle export commitments made to India, and this the French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, duly promised, at least for now. The Russians would similarly have to be reengaged about their civilian nuclear commitments, and all this demeans India and the government in power.

Rather than being defensive about so brutally letting down the PM at the G-8 summit, Clinton is taking the route of offense, announcing to the press in the US what she intends to engage the Indians about. What's the point of this bloody-mindedness? Is it to scare the government? Is India some tin pot dictatorship to be scared by a tough talking secretary of state, even though her husband, Bill Clinton, was a "friend" of India inasmuch as an American president can be a "friend" of another state? Perhaps Clinton may consult her husband before coming on so aggressively against India.

From newspaper reports, it appears that India is walking a tightrope. On one hand, it has approved two sites for imported American power reactors to show that it is not backing out of the nuclear deal, although it feels hurt at America's unreliability as a "strategic partner". Clinton would be wrong to misjudge this as Indian timidity. Manmohan Singh is a timid prime minister, but lately, he has shown he cannot be walked over. For example, the Americans have pressured him for recommencing talks with Pakistan. But at the Egypt meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, the PM chose to be at odds with the joint communiquÃ©, saying that unless Pakistan was found committed to countering terrorism, there would be no dialogue, much less a composite dialogue. That should warn the Americans not to push the PM.

The second example appears disconnected, but there are obvious links to the objective Clinton is pursuing on her visit. The newspapers have reported that in ten days' time, India's indigenous nuclear submarine called ATV will begin "preliminary trials" at Visakhapatnam. Between "preliminary trials" and when the ATV enters naval service is a long, time-consuming, perilous process, but it marks determination to have the third leg of the triad. India's ultimate insurance against China is a sea-based deterrent with intercontinental range missiles. After the Uighur riots, and given the internal economic meltdown, it cannot be put past China to engage in external hostility to divert attention from troubles at home, and India, its strategic competitor, appears the most delectable target. For those intercontinental SLBMs, India has to test its thermo-nuclear warhead designs, the Pokhran - 2 test being a failure in that weapon class. So how on earth does Clinton expect India to give a CTBT commitment when its "unilateral moratorium" itself has become an albatross around its neck? And the ATV power plant will need enormous refining before final commissioning, and the US-pressured G-8 ban on enrichment technologies cannot enthuse India at all. Besides the China threat, the sea-based deterrent will stop Pakistan's jihadi generals from spiriting some weapons to the terrorists for use against India, because now Pakistan's annihilation many times over from an Indian retaliatory second strike will be absolutely guaranteed.

In these circumstances, should Clinton come harum-scarum pushing her non-proliferation agenda? It would be far better if she uses these five days to understand the Indian position and its sensitivities (it galls to keep having to educate administration after US administration about India's unique security dilemmas, but it is inescapable) and to realize that America will be strengthened by going along with India and not by making unreasonable and unacceptable demands of it.

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi).

Please visit N.V.Subramanian's blog http://courtesanofstorms.blog.com/

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Jul 2009 23:19

Prem Kumar wrote: I am afraid this thread will become a whine-fest

Let there be whine!

OK people, please only strategic whines onlee.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2009 23:20

Let me make my stand very clear on this issue.
whine or not, EUM represents a very grave threat to our independence of action.
This thread is about the implications of EUM agreement and NOT about why MMS did it etc etc. Posts of the second should be posted elsewhere and in this thread those OT posts are liable to be summarily deleted.

At the very least, a better understanding of the nuances is necessary.
I'll edit the thread title for emphasis.
Rahul.

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Jul 2009 23:23

vera_k wrote:
VikasRaina wrote:Well, When we voted, we all knew that if UPA formation would come to power, MMS would be the PM and UPA got the majority fair and square.
Except that due to the peculiarties of our first past the post system, 2 out of 3 people you meet would have voted for a different choice.

I see people have already started spoiling the new thread. Great going.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Jul 2009 23:24

Enough of the 'we voted for MMS/no we did not' already !
Patience is running thin on my part, thread derailment means warnings !

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 23:25

Gentlemen and Ladies, let us try and analyze what the new modes of thinking which we have to live with for next 4 years will mean for India.

Let us think what can be some ways to get out of the current situation whenever we have a govt in India which thinks differently on these issues.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 23:29

Choli ke peecche kya hai? Choli ke peeche?

We will perhaps never find that out here. But it would still be better to see the wording of the EUM Agreement before pronouncing all sorts death warrants to the nation!

If somebody is aware of the exact concerns India had regarding this agreement, also please do post those as well. Thx.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 20 Jul 2009 23:31

OK .. let me play the Devil's advocate here ...
India has signed the EUM agreement for defence purchases from the US. Now, the general fear here is that this will provide a leverage to US to come up with inspections when India is at war with its adversaries, thereby allowing it to arm-twist India into accepting terms and conditions which would be inmical to Indian interests.
Now my question to guru log here is that what will stop India from stalling these inspections till the time our operations are over ? I mean, does this agreement in any way effect the operational efficiencies of our forces at critical time?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 23:36

g.kacha ji

Good question!

1. Can India refuse inspections at times of hightened alert and war?
2. Can India refuse to divulge the details on the tactical use of equipment, which war theater, in conjunction with what other equipment, who mans it, testing done with it, scenario of intended use, etc.?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 23:36

RajeshA wrote:Choli ke peecche kya hai? Choli ke peeche?

We will perhaps never find that out here. But it would still be better to see the wording of the EUM Agreement before pronouncing all sorts death warrants to the nation!

If somebody is aware of the exact concerns India had regarding this agreement, also please do post those as well. Thx.

MEA site

Indo-US Joint Statement

India –US Joint Statement

20/07/2009

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today committed to building an enhanced India- U.S. strategic partnership that seeks to advance solutions to the defining challenges of our time.

They agreed to strengthen the existing bilateral relationships and mechanisms for cooperation between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United States of America, while 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 over the last two Indian and U.S. Administrations, they committed to pursuing a third and transformative phase of the relationship that will enhance global prosperity and stability in the 21st century.

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton will chair an “India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue” that meets once annually in alternate capitals. This dialogue will focus on a wide range of bilateral, global, and regional issues of shared interest and common concern, continuing programmes currently under implementation and taking mutually beneficial initiatives that complement Indian and U.S. development, security and economic interests.

Secretary Clinton looks forward to welcoming Minister Krishna for the first round of the Strategic Dialogue in Washington, D.C. in the coming year.

ADVANCING COMMON SECURITY INTERESTS

Recognizing the shared common desire to increase mutual security against the common threats posed by international terrorism, Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the commitment of both Governments to build on recent increased coordination in counter-terrorism. Secretary Clinton invited Home Minister Chidambaram to visit Washington in the near future. External Affairs Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton also reaffirmed their commitment to early adoption of a UN Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism which would strengthen the framework for global cooperation.

DEFENCE CO-OPERATION

Noting the enhanced co-operation in defence under the Defence Co-operation Framework Agreement of 2005, External Affairs Minister and Secretary Clinton reiterated the commitment of both Governments to pursue mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of defence. External Affairs Minister Krishna announced that both sides had reached agreement on End Use Monitoring for U.S. defense articles.

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.

CIVIL NUCLEAR CO-OPERATION

Building on the success of the India –U.S. Civil Nuclear Initiative, on July 21, India and the United States will begin consultations on reprocessing arrangements and procedures, as provided in Article 6 (iii) of the 123 Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation between India and the United States.

GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS

Secretary Clinton affirmed that multilateral organizations and groupings should reflect the world of the 21st century in order to maintain long-term credibility, relevance and effectiveness, and both Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton expressed their interest in exchanging views on new configurations of the UN Security Council, the G-8, and the G-20.

PURSUING SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

As members of the G-20, India and the United States have pledged to work together with other major economies to foster a sustainable recovery from the global economic crisis through a commitment to open trade and investment policies. Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton reaffirmed the commitment of both Governments to facilitating a pathway forward on the WTO Doha Round.

They pledged to co-operate to not only preserve the economic synergies between the two countries that have grown over the years, but also to increase and diversify bilateral economic relations and expand trade and investment flows. The two sides noted that negotiations for a Bilateral Investment Treaty would be scheduled in New Delhi in August 2009. They resolved to harness the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the private sectors of both countries with a newly-configured CEO Forum that will meet later this year.

EDUCATION

External Affairs Minister Krishna and Secretary of State Clinton affirmed the importance of expanding educational cooperation through exchanges and institutional collaboration, and agreed on the need to expand the role of the private sector in strengthening this collaboration.

SPACE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

Recognizing the great potential in India-U.S. science and technology collaboration, the two sides have concluded a Science and Technology Endowment Agreement, and signed a Technology Safeguards Agreement that will permit the launch of civil or non-commercial satellites containing U.S. components on Indian space launch vehicles. Both sides welcomed India’s participation in the FutureGen Project for the construction of the first commercial scale fully integrated carbon capture and sequestration project and India’s participation in the Integrated Ocean Development Project, an international endeavour for enhancing the understanding of Earth and Ocean dynamics and addressing the challenges of climate change.

HIGH TECHNOLOGY CO-OPERATION

Noting the high potential that exists due to the complementarities in the knowledge and innovation-based economies of the two countries, it was agreed that the agenda and the initiatives in the bilateral High Technology Cooperation Dialogue should continue, with the objective of facilitating smoother trade in high technology between the two economies reflecting the present strategic nature of the India-U.S. relationship.

It was also agreed that working groups would be formed to focus on new areas of common interest in nano-technology, civil nuclear technology, civil aviation and licensing issues in defence, strategic and civil nuclear trade.

ENERGY SECURITY, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton pledged to intensify collaboration on energy security and climate change. Efforts will focus on increasing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean energy technologies through the India-U.S. Energy Dialogue and a Global Climate Change Dialogue.

Both sides also agreed to launch a process of bilateral scientific and technological collaboration to support the development, deployment and transfer of transformative and innovative technologies in areas of mutual interest including solar and other renewable energy, clean coal and energy efficiency, and other relevant areas.

India and the U.S. affirmed their commitment to work together with other countries, including through the Major Economies Forum, for positive results in the UNFCCC Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009.

GLOBAL ISSUES

The two sides noted the valuable engagement between both Governments on global issues of common concern such as strengthening democracy and capacity building in democratic institutions as co-founders of the UN Democracy Fund.

The two sides agreed to develop a Women’s Empowerment Forum (WEF) to exchange lessons and best practices on women’s empowerment and development and consider ways to empower women in the region and beyond.

CONCLUSION

Minister Krishna and Secretary Clinton reaffirmed that the excellent relations between India and the United States rests on the bedrock of kinship, commerce and educational ties between the Indian and American people.

Secretary Clinton thanked External Affairs Minister and the people of India for their warm reception and hospitality.

New Delhi
July 20, 2009

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 20 Jul 2009 23:39

IIRC, the MoD was against the EUA 400%. There was speculation that the PMO and the MEA were targeted for sustained pressure likely because they were seen as more pliable.

The PMO can override many things in the lesser ministries. The EUA is already a done deal. I now worry about what is next.

I hope it will not be some surrender of rights, claims or otherwise on Indian territory.

NRao in the N-thread made this worrying observation that our N-plants could be targeted under EUA for verification of fuel over and above any IAEA commitments. Not sure how that may play out.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 23:43

g.kacha wrote:Now my question to guru log here is that what will stop India from stalling these inspections till the time our operations are over ? I mean, does this agreement in any way effect the operational efficiencies of our forces at critical time?

There are two issues here
1) Simple H&D issue (and for gods sake dont underestimate it) -- the PR issue -- this dictates how India will be seen as and treated in the world community. How expensive or cheap Indian blood would be. How much premium will India's word get. How hard we have to slog for each point we earn.
2) Hooks into Indian military establishment -- this gives US a chance to provide intrusive hooks into critical Indian Mil units. This interaction will lay open to US the Indian strategic thinking, the level of training and maintenance and overall competence. In short we have opened the Indian Mil establishment for intrusion by US to what ever intent they have.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Jul 2009 23:44

vsudhir wrote:NRao in the N-thread made this worrying observation that our N-plants could be targeted under EUA for verification of fuel over and above any IAEA commitments. Not sure how that may play out.

IMHO, EUMA is concerned only with defense supplies, and cannot be used for nuclear supplies.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 20 Jul 2009 23:50

Sanku wrote: There are two issues here
1) Simple H&D issue (and for gods sake dont underestimate it) -- the PR issue -- this dictates how India will be seen as and treated in the world community. How expensive or cheap Indian blood would be. How much premium will India's word get. How hard we have to slog for each point we earn.
2) Hooks into Indian military establishment -- this gives US a chance to provide intrusive hooks into critical Indian Mil units. This interaction will lay open to US the Indian strategic thinking, the level of training and maintenance and overall competence. In short we have opened the Indian Mil establishment for intrusion by US to what ever intent they have.

Sanku ...
I agree that this is a H&D issue ... but what I want to know is that is this just an H&D issue where actual gains on the ground maybe higher (in terms of getting latest weapons, having access to a new source of defence equipment etc.) or is it a serious national security threat?

Regarding your second point, how different will these inspections be from all the joint exercises we do with Unkil? Don't they also provide hooks into the Indian military establishment ? Doesn't unkil get an idea of not only our strategic but also tactical thinking, level of training etc through our participation in those joint exercises?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Jul 2009 23:51

RajeshA wrote:
vsudhir wrote:NRao in the N-thread made this worrying observation that our N-plants could be targeted under EUA for verification of fuel over and above any IAEA commitments. Not sure how that may play out.
IMHO, EUMA is concerned only with defense supplies, and cannot be used for nuclear supplies.

India wants TOT for the stuff she wants to buy. So there have to be agreements not to transfer that if they get it. In addition there are needs to ensure the stuff isnt diverted to third parties. So some sort of End User verification is on the cards. The question is what are the nitty gritty.

Read the Wassenar Agrement on conventional weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassenaar_Arrangement

Current EUMA is only for military supplies.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 23:58

g.kacha wrote: I agree that this is a H&D issue ... but what I want to know is that is this just an H&D issue where actual gains on the ground maybe higher (in terms of getting latest weapons, having access to a new source of defence equipment etc.) or is it a serious national security threat?

I have a simple outlook towards that, there is a difference in purchasing a gun for your self defence, and borrowing a gun from a friend with the promise you will keep it well and he can check on it from time to time.
This basically decides whether you are a free agent or will work "with" others. So far despite everything -- India was a free agent. This takes away our freedom -- and I really cant answer the question on whats the freedom worth.

Regarding your second point, how different will these inspections be from all the joint exercises we do with Unkil? Don't they also provide hooks into the Indian military establishment ? Doesn't unkil get an idea of not only our strategic but also tactical thinking, level of training etc through our participation in those joint exercises?

Well the exercises are not a ongoing predecided legislated requirements. We can do some exercises, we can not also do some. We decide the troops the equipment and the place as well the depth of external inspection. With the EUM we cant.

This is a real gap.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Jul 2009 23:59

Anujan wrote:
Mihaylo wrote:If if comes through, the end use agreement will allow American defence companies to sell defence hardware and software with the rider that India will neither pass on the weapons nor the tecnology forward.

Is this all that India agreed to ? If so I don't see anything wrong with it
Except if it contains provisions that the equipment will be inspected on site, with expenses paid by India. Or if the equipment cannot be used against "nations which are american allies" (read Munna). Or if it applies to all dual use technology (read inspection of our nuclear facilities). The agreement follows "guilty unless proven innocent" template.

There are 1000's of things wrong with it. Dont believe the positive spin and psy-ops.

How many times russies inspected our MKIs or told what we can or cannot do with them ?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Jul 2009 00:00

Chiron wrote:I would like to look at Sharm-e-Sheikh Harakiri by MMS and the Clinton visit with reference to each other.

Some Piradhers here say that it was a great defeat of India, where as some others say that it was a Chankian victory clinched by India. I guess, instead of looking at the events in victory and defeat, why can't we simply enlist the things which we gained and things which we lost.

1. What exactly was agreed upon?
2. What are the gains for India in these two events?
3. What did we loose?

Just list, and not commentary..

Thank you...

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 21 Jul 2009 00:00

* Why would the defence technology EUMA apply to the civilian nuclear fuel/material domain ?
* How does the EUMA make it easier for the US to be a contender in various Indian military bid processes ? E.g., the Russians and French would just say - 'here, we're not going to ask what you do with our weapons in wartime'.
* What is the EUMA ? Does it just audit any transfer to third parties, or does it do something more invasive like embargo arms/spares in wartime ?

From my perspective, the more important issue was not the EUMA but the issue of legally binding caps on carbon emissions. The EUMA only matters if we actually buy anything from the US; the carbon cap issue was a far more significant long term trade embargo problem. Jairam Ramesh did an excellent job on that front, publicly rebuffing Ms.Clinton.

Maybe it is my economically centered view, but it is not as much an issue to me that Unkil sends some Barney Fife to look at the Trenton/Jalashwa, as the potential for punitive embargoes due to some absurdly discriminatory carbon cap.

I see three distinct matters during the Clinton visit:
* Civilian nuclear accord makes forward progress, a plus
* No legally binding compromise on emissions caps, another plus
* EUMA, a compromise, but only significant if we purchase critical mliitary gear from US.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Jul 2009 00:10

RajeshA wrote:g.kacha ji

Good question!

1. Can India refuse inspections at times of hightened alert and war?
2. Can India refuse to divulge the details on the tactical use of equipment, which war theater, in conjunction with what other equipment, who mans it, testing done with it, scenario of intended use, etc.?

India can always postpone a EUM inspection.

porkis always fight terrorists in close proximity to Indian troops during war.

We can also do the same, no?

Precedence has already been established by the porkis for us to easily circumvent the EUM in times of emergency.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 00:10

Sanku wrote:
g.kacha wrote: I agree that this is a H&D issue ... but what I want to know is that is this just an H&D issue where actual gains on the ground maybe higher (in terms of getting latest weapons, having access to a new source of defence equipment etc.) or is it a serious national security threat?
I have a simple outlook towards that, there is a difference in purchasing a gun for your self defence, and borrowing a gun from a friend with the promise you will keep it well and he can check on it from time to time.
This basically decides whether you are a free agent or will work "with" others. So far despite everything -- India was a free agent. This takes away our freedom -- and I really cant answer the question on whats the freedom worth.

...

The apt analogy is leasing instead of buying.

And the alternative is to develop the technology yourself and GOI somehow doesn't spend the right amount of money in local expertise. And there is clamor to get the US stuff from the users.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Jul 2009 00:17

EUMA, a compromise, but only significant if we purchase critical mliitary gear from US.

suraj, I know you don't spend too much time on defence matters but the current govt seems bent on doing just that. I admit we are not yet in a position to pass a final judgement but we will definitely know in the next couple of years.
unfortunately by then it may be too late. military equipments need long term planning and once purchased it may be impossible to undo the damage if the americans play hardball.

At the very least, GoI needs to make the EUM agreement public ASAP in order to assuage the apprehension of its citizens.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2009 00:22

I think the agreements are not signed yet. The MEA statement says that "agreement has been reached" and not "agreement has been signed". Of course, the semantics might matter little to the DDM, but the MEA statement is clear. It is "reached" and not "signed".

There was one other article that someone had posted above, where MMS wanted the CCS to sign off on the EUM. Can someone please repost that article?

The MRCA will probably go the americans as quid pro quo for the nuclear deal. As someone had posted earlier, the EUM/arms deal was part of the nuclear agreement. Can someone please post that link too, where the american official made the link between nuclear deal and EUM/arms deal explicit?

The americans have already seen how Russia and France rushed in as soon as the NSG/IAEA voted on the nuclear deal. Will they make the same mistake again? I doubt that they would push the EUM deal so hard unless India had also agreed( at least informally) to award major arms purchases from US.

As for the nuclear reactors, the govt has to pass a law in parliament granting immunity to the private companies that sell the reactors. Till then, the agreement with US for nuclear reactors will remain only on paper. Now, with US blatantly siding with Union Carbide in the Bhopal gas tragedy, how will GoI justify granting immunity to US nuclear companies?

Finally, why are the commies silent on the EUM? And the BJP?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 00:25

This might explain what is going on. Pranab, Antony being sidelined as far as foreign policy is concerned. This is very disturbing to say the least.

Clearly Congress leaders are admitting that the joint statement was wrong and now we have EUVA capitulation.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/ ... ngress.htm

Is trouble brewing within the Congress?

Is there trouble brewing in Sonia Gandhi's [ Images ] paradise? And is there a clash of personalities between the two top leaders in the government, an echo of which is being heard in the corridors of the United Progressive Alliance [ Images ]?

An indication of this came on Monday afternoon when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] hosted a small and exclusive lunch for the visiting United States Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at his 7 Race Course Road residence.
And significantly absent at the lunch was the Union Finance Minister and the Number 2 in the government, Pranab Mukherjee [ Images ], whom sources say was not invited for the lunch.

The PM appears to have set his own agenda as far as Hilary Clinton is concerned, and this was quite evident from his guest list.

While Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi [ Images ] was a prominent invitee, the Prime Minister picked up External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and the Union Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma, as the only two ministers who were invited for the lunch.

While Krishna is the current Minister for External Affairs, Anand Sharma was the minister of state, external affairs in the last regime. But by that reckoning, Pranab Mukherjee was the Union external affairs minister in the last government and who better than him could have provided continuity to the dialogue process.

But this is where the story becomes even more interesting. On the invitee list were the Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia [ Images ] (known to be the PM's closest confidant as well as a known pro-US economist ) and his wife Isher Judge Ahluwalia, also an economist.

Ignoring all senior ministers in his government, the Prime Minister picked Nandan Nikenkani, Kiran Shaw Majumdar and Ratan Tata [ Images ] as the other high profile guests at the lunch.

Also present was the National Security Advisor M K Narayanan, principal secretary T KA Nair, the Indian ambassador to the US Meera Shanker and the Foreign Secretary Shiv Shanker Menon.

While the menu at the lunch was pure Avadhi, which is what Hilary Clinton likes, Pranab Mukherjee was in his Parliament House office where he had lunch with Ahmed Patel, the powerful political secretary to the Congress President Sonia Gandhi, who is known to enjoy a close working relationship with Pranab Mukherjee. Later the two were joined by the Union Defence Minister A K Antony.

It is no secret that after the UPA victory, the Prime Minister wanted Montek Singh Ahluwalia as the Finance Minister, but the move was scuttled by Sonia Gandhi who preferred an experienced, middle-of-the-road approach politician like Pranab Mukherjee to handle the country's finances.

The Prime Minister also wanted total control over external affairs ministry and in this he had his way as the party see-sawed with a number of names before they zeroed-in on S M Krishna.

Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.

The pro-active nature of the PM's role on Pakistan is an evidence of it.

The Congress party which for the first time refused to sing praises of the Prime Minister over his handling of Pakistan in the joint statement has now privately admitted that the inclusion of Baluchistan in the joint statement was a "blunder ", and could give Pakistan leverage which they could exploit in times to come.

A senior Congress leader said that tomorrow if anything happens in Baluchistan, Pakistan can always turn around and blame India or worse still, Pakistan can engineer a situation in Baluchistan and blame India for it to get the upper hand.

Sources in the Congress party admit that the situation in the second innings of Dr Manmohan Singh is qualitatively different from the first one.

Brushing aside the PMO penchant to accommodate bureaucrats in key positions, the Congress this time around has listened to its political voices by appointing senior Congress leaders as governors in the reshuffle which took place on Saturday.

There was a great deal of resentment last time around in the party, at the manner in which bureaucrats were being preferred to politicians.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 21 Jul 2009 00:29

Who does the inspections - the companies selling their wares (e.g. LM, Boeing) or the U.S. govt.? If it is the former, they would care the least what happens to the weapons after they are bought. And they wouldn't want to jeopardize their future prospects by antagonizing an important customer. So EU may just be a necessary evil dictated by the US Congress. On the other hand, if the inspections are done by the US govt., the agreement is far more serious and there is every possibility of arm-twisting and misuse.

The important thing to find out is how invasive the agreement is. If it's following the usual US template, then there should be a copy of the agreement with another country available somewhere on the web.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 21 Jul 2009 00:36

rediff link wrote:Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.

This is what I had alluded to earlier. The PMO is trying to control foreign policy by having a pliant EAM. Look at the importance given to Montek singh in all aspects of the government. Looks like the kitchen cabinets are back again and this time there is no one to question them!

chandrabhan · Post by **chandrabhan** » 21 Jul 2009 00:37

Ramana Sir,
The worry should arise for the fact the most likely countries we may land up using the weapons are TSP and Chincoms. What happens in case India and TSP go to war? The munna will be protected and India in that case will need to cultivate deeper freindship with the gauls and Ruskies.
What happens to MRCA in this case?

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 21 Jul 2009 00:42

RaviBg wrote:
rediff link wrote:Those close to 7 Race Course Road disclose that the decision to bring in three comparatively new and inexperienced ministers, Krishna, Shashi Tharoor [ Images ] and Parneet Kaur was deliberate and well thought out by the PM, as it gave Dr Singh along with the NSA, to run the foreign policy.

Which effectively what has been happening since the UPA government took charge with Krishna more and more looking like a tenant rather than a landlord in his own ministry.
This is what I had alluded to earlier. The PMO is trying to control foreign policy by having a pliant EAM. Look at the importance given to Montek singh in all aspects of the government. Looks like the kitchen cabinets are back again and this time there is no one to question them!

If you look at how the nuclear deal was pushed. First Natwar Singh was removed from FM position as the UN scam report came out. After that MMS was the FM when the nuclear deal was pushed.

Kamal Nath was removed from commerce ministry and has been replaced by Anand Sharma. Anand Sharma was invited to the lunch with Hillary.

If you connect the dots, it is really scary. Why does MMS want to control the Foreign Ministry?

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 21 Jul 2009 00:50

This is necessary topic to discuss
Xposting from MRCA thread

Samay wrote:
PratikDas wrote: Where is the proof that EULA has not been customised for India? How did you infer the impact on DRDO and HAL from the first press release?

Where is the proof that EULA is customized for India, ?
Desi dork are very quick to catch such small things which can be used as a self praise of the country orit is a sensation ,even when there is a bigger loss

If I am supposed to be an amirkhan agent,some secretary,etc,.
To benefit my companies indefinitely and to capitulate a country's defences ,and if I have a tool called advanced technology in weapons,

first step I will take, is to ensure that the labs aren't able to copy my patents and I will not give them technology as well,.neither let them develop any significant tech using babu-politician spiral.

Second ,I will ensure that only my cos. products are purchased to increase dependence, this achieved via corruption , and then I will sell them those products at a much cheaper rate than any competitor ,so that local and international competitors are removed, then I will increase dependence and hence the price,.

Third,to let them have it at lower price and latest tech., I will tell them to sign a defence cooperation agreement that bounds them to help my country in any of its expansive misadventures,.

somewhat relative things happened to India, when ussr was its primary supplier, now when russian industry is weak,usa is trying to fill the gap, and will bound us to do things against national interest,like pakistan is bound to do,.

This is called the EULA magic

,

BTW we will never know , what was in that agreement, if it is not satisfactory for India, then anti-national,desi dork media will try to bury anything about it, as we will see in few days,.

If there was anything good for India in that agreement ,it should have been said in the joint press conference of chillary clinton ,.what's not said is what common people not supposed to know, .

:

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2009 00:51

chandrabhan wrote:Ramana Sir,
The worry should arise for the fact the most likely countries we may land up using the weapons are TSP and Chincoms. What happens in case India and TSP go to war? The munna will be protected and India in that case will need to cultivate deeper freindship with the gauls and Ruskies.
What happens to MRCA in this case?

See my comments in the MRCA thread. And I dont know India wants to attack those two countries. It might get attacked by them, but on her own no chance.

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

Ajatshatru wrote:Bhailog, I have a question:

Since this agreement may directly effect the armed forces in the future, what if Chiefs of Army... expressing displeasure at this
end user agreement. How would Congress party react in such a scenario?

According to most of us here, our Chief of Army is like MMS he is also controlled by Americans. He is having Chai-Biscuits in America....