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

[rkirankr]

India is a huge defence equipment buyer and US had no toe hold till now. When US enters the competition it might not play fair , as demonstrated by the pressure brought on one of its allies to withdraw from MRCA. Now what is US offering us , is it top of the line, the F16 and F18? Is it the best available in the market which would give us a "quantum leap over our adversaries"?
Now with this agreement , we have lost the advantage we had to bargain for a good deal. US will definitely try to eliminate its competitors in all future bids and many of them will not be purely due to the supposed technical superiority of US weapons.

I appreciate the for and against arguments with respect to this deal. Some of the points raised by the people who support the deal are also good, but to hint that ACM Krishnaswamy is a liar is very cheap and uncalled for.

Just adding after reviewing my post, I am not planning to start a discussion on F16 or F18, but my point is, will US really bring its state of the art , top of shelf to sell it to us?

[Sanku]

But if we had already shortlisted F16 or F18 and the deal was held up based on parts of EUMA which we found objectionable, and we are trying to award it to the next favorable company, would we have the same EUMA that we have now?

Absolutely, what the hurry to wrap up the EUMA (from Indian perspective) let those who give us the best conditions take the MRCA contracts, why first accept a condition and tie our hands behind our back.

[Virupaksha]

I am not rreading what "I want to"..the whole article by the ACM was depicting a case of the IAF having been able to manage to maintain and upgrade all its equipment on its own (with some foreign help) till now, and the American option will not allow that...Surely, that is not true (you call it lying, call it TE, call it whatever you will)...There are tons of cases where disruptuion in supplies of spares and services by OEMs have grounded entire fleets, and we have been able to do jackshit about it - some examples I have already given..

You are mainly talking about countries which have completely disintegrated(Soviet to Russia) and the disintegration which followed. We can find many things which Russia has not provided us which can be already compared to things which US has refused to provide us. But when I compare with what Russia has provided us to what US has provided us, we know that someone here is talking of Jacksh*t and providing examples of "selective inexactitude".

Most large upgrade programmes have some involvement of the OEM, if not the full upgrade..And both M2k and Mig29 upgrades would be done by the OEM - doign the upgrade in India is akin to license manufacturing a new aircraft here..

BTW, HAL doingthe Mig29 upgrade?
http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/20 ... ig_29.html

please remind me of the details of Bison upgrade for mig21. please also remind me of t
[/quote]

You (and ther good ACM) are assuming a lot of the worst case scenarios about US equipment and ascribing them as standadr clauses in the EUVA - thats the red herring.

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes and ultimately go extinct."
The issue is with respect to military and strategic affairs, those worst case scenarios have all been true.

..We have seen very very bad scenarios with Russia (wholesale suspension of spares supply after the breakup of SU,

So your supplier goes bankrupt and the resulting disruption is because of the bad behavior of supplier

periodic problems with every single platform on after sales service, older platforms delivered as new etc etc)...doesnt mean we stop buying from them - because thre is a strategic imperative..

The strategic imperative is they have always been willing to go beyond what can be "reasonably" expected out of them. and the strategic imperative of US is amply being shown by it with its dealings for ENR.

What makes you think US wont give us source codes, wont allow third party integration, wont allow mid life upgrades using third party components etc etc...

one word history of their behavior and not having one's own head in the sand. Yes, they are not ready to share F-22 with their NATO allies and give dumbed down F-35s to their bestest of friends, you expect to give us source codes of AESA etc.

If they dont, and if we think its still worth it, we will buy, if not we wont..

what if they dont say whether they will give on paper or not but at the end dont give again a common occurence wrt to them

[Sanku]

I appreciate the for and against arguments with respect to this deal. Some of the points raised by the people who support the deal are also good, but to hint that ACM Krishnaswamy is a liar is very cheap and uncalled for

This essentially goes to show, that there is no counter argument to what ACM said, the only way therefore is to attack him and prove him a liar.

Unfortunately for them he has 60 years of data on his side, and has been very measured in his article.

[Sanku]

I hope you notice that despite Sanku's ridiculous allegation, I did not say a word about what the ACM wrote. In fact in my first post to you I very clearly stated that I don't want to get into the debate about what the ACM wrote.

Once more the same exercise -- you can you tell me where I have alleged that you spoke about ACM?

I have said
Somnath has been calling ACM a liar
You have been calling all those who say EUM is bad as "dont buy america"

And the fact that you dont want to debate what ACM said is proof enough actually.

[putnanja]

If the ACM has "seen" some version of EUMA, then there are a ton of other ex servicement who are saying the opposite thing (see my link above) - they would have also seen some version, no?

What the ACM is implying is that there are a bunch of problems relating to upgrades that would arise out of buying American equipment, whereas I am pointing out with examples that those issues are even there with the others, and are being tackled by armed forces and the system..

We have been buying arms from US for how long now? since 1999 when we started off with firecontrol radars? And none of the links you have added made any mention of not being able to do upgrades.

And in EUMA, the upgrades are supposedly banned outright. It wasn't the case with other countries. And they tried to play hardball so they could make money on the lucrative contracts. Some cases where we didn't have enough experitise, we went with them and in other cases we did it ourselves. The US agreement bans it outright.

Bottom line is you read the article on how you wanted to read it and called the ACM a liar based on narrow selective irrational interpretation. I have no interest in continuing any discussion with you. Maybe you work for a US defence corporation or maybe you own some US defence company stocks or maybe you are part of US govt/thinktank, I don't know. At least amit has some valid points and doesn't try to obfuscate the issue. But you, I don't know what your agenda is. good bye

[amit]

India is a huge defence equipment buyer and US had no toe hold till now. When US enters the competition it might not play fair , as demonstrated by the pressure brought on one of its allies to withdraw from MRCA. Now what is US offering us , is it top of the line, the F16 and F18? Is it the best available in the market which would give us a "quantum leap over our adversaries"?

This is new do you have any links to support the bolded portion?

[Sanku]

India is a huge defence equipment buyer and US had no toe hold till now. When US enters the competition it might not play fair , as demonstrated by the pressure brought on one of its allies to withdraw from MRCA. Now what is US offering us , is it top of the line, the F16 and F18? Is it the best available in the market which would give us a "quantum leap over our adversaries"?

This is new do you have any links to support the bolded portion?

You should read the mil forum a lot lot more before you decide to take stand in debates like these Amit. Seriously.

Meanwhile http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... n-bid.html

[amit]

Once more the same exercise -- you can you tell me where I have alleged that you spoke about ACM?

You wrote:

Yes, when you and Somanth, ascribe qualities and motives to ACM, BC and others of their stature on a open public board, any of the public members has the freedom to step in in call you out on the less than accurate portrayal.

I'm sick and tired of this tomfoolery Sanku. You are a person who has nothing new to say and hence you resort to petty insults.

I'll leave it to the Moderators to decide what you actually said. Meanwhile, I'll ignore you, you're not worth the time for a productive debate.

[Sanku]

Yes, when you and Somanth, ascribe qualities and motives to ACM, BC and others of their stature on a open public board, any of the public members has the freedom to step in in call you out on the less than accurate portrayal.

Indeed please read "when you and Somnath ascribe qualities and motives to ACM, BC and others"

You have indeed been ascribing qualities and motives to BC and others. You can leave out ACM if that does not apply to you. I did not mean to say that you have for sure and if it comes across as that, you have my unqualified apology and explanation.

Neither did I say that you have said ACM is lying (see above) I have specifically said that for Somnath in other posts.

You are mixing up posts at random and ascribing quotes to me which I have not made. I see you doing that a lot actually.

[RayC]

Gentlemen,

Please get back to the topic.

Your personal difference you may sort out in the boxing ring, if indeed you can peaceably decide the venue.

I can referee that, if you desire.

Please refrain from making this thread a personal fief to sort out your difference in opinion as to who said what and when!

Consider this as a caution.

Next step could be worse!

[amit]

Deleted.

Irrelevant to the topic and we are no longer entertaining what Sanku said, Somnath said, X said and Y said which are acrimonious in nature.

I will not hesitate to warn in quick succession and have you banned before one can say Jack Robinson or even blink!

[Sanku]

Please refrain from making this thread a personal fief to sort out your difference in opinion as to who said what and when!

Thanks for the offer RayC, a referee would be good. However in any case -- I will cease and desist, I only hope people do not ascribe statements to me which I have not made.

[amit]

Gentlemen,

Please get back to the topic.

Your personal difference you may sort out in the boxing ring, if indeed you can peaceably decide the venue.

I can referee that, if you desire.

Please refrain from making this thread a personal fief to sort out your difference in opinion as to who said what and when!

Consider this as a caution.

Next step could be worse!

RayC,

I protest. I have not in one case used foul language against either any poster or any public figure.

How come you are tarring everyone with the same feather?

[RayC]

Gentlemen,

Please get back to the topic.

Your personal difference you may sort out in the boxing ring, if indeed you can peaceably decide the venue.

I can referee that, if you desire.

Please refrain from making this thread a personal fief to sort out your difference in opinion as to who said what and when!

Consider this as a caution.

Next step could be worse!

RayC,

I protest. I have not in one case used foul language against either any poster or any public figure.

How come you are tarring everyone with the same feather?

Protest overruled.

Debate issues and not what someone said.

No need for anyone to get personal and acrimonious.

That is all what is desired.

Read this thread, it is becoming what A said but B refutes etc.

It is becoming chaotic!

The next thing I can do is lock the thread and finito!

All should take a deep breath, shake hands and start afresh on the issues involved.

Everyone's cooperation would be high appreciated.

[amit]

Protest overruled.

Debate issues and not what someone said.

No need for anyone to get personal and acrimonious.

That is all what is desired.

Read this thread, it is becoming what A said but B refutes etc.

It is becoming chaotic!

The next thing I can do is lock the thread and finito!

All should take a deep breath, shake hands and start afresh on the issues involved.

Fair enough, you're the Moderator and so what you decide is final.

However, I would like to put on record that I've been debating the issue and not what someone said. And I've been doing so in a very civil and cordial manner. At no point did I get personal and abusive in fact I've been the victim of personal attacks and not vice versa as you could find out if you care to check previous posts. Surely if someone calls me names/attributes motives to me, I have an option to protest?

Cheers!

[Sanku]

From Indo-US thread needs to be here too.

BOTH SWEET AND BITTER- It is good for India to shake hands with the US, not embrace it - Kanwal Sibal

...
In the defence field, the US can offer some very advanced technologies, but its military sales and transfers are accompanied by end-use monitoring that in many ways infringe the sovereignty of the recipient country. The US can demand such intrusive rights from allies whose defence it is responsible for, but not from independent countries who might make their own decisions on the security issues confronting them. I
...

...
We conveyed our agreement to the end-use monitoring agreement — no signing is required — to which the US attached priority,
...

...
The challenge before India is to leverage US strengths to its advantage without conceding ground on issues of vital interest to us. Decrying the US ideologically would be entirely wrong, just as relying on the US to make us a global power would be fanciful. We should be ready to shake hands with the US but be cautious about embracing it.

I submit that the current GoI has failed in the addressing this challenge. It tends to solve issues by conceding ground rather than sticking up to Indian interests the best it can.

[RayC]

Protest overruled.

Debate issues and not what someone said.

No need for anyone to get personal and acrimonious.

That is all what is desired.

Read this thread, it is becoming what A said but B refutes etc.

It is becoming chaotic!

The next thing I can do is lock the thread and finito!

All should take a deep breath, shake hands and start afresh on the issues involved.

Fair enough, you're the Moderator and so what you decide is final.

However, I would like to put on record that I've been debating the issue and not what someone said. And I've been doing so in a very civil and cordial manner. At no point did I get personal and abusive in fact I've been the victim of personal attacks and not vice versa as you could find out if you care to check previous posts. Surely if someone calls me names/attributes motives to me, I have an option to protest?

Cheers!

You ae entitled to protest.

I am entitled to overrule since I have not mentioned you specifically in my post. Therefore, why feel it is you alone, if indeed if you are in the loop. Have I said so?

What I have put in Bold is exactly the reason why I put up my request and caution. And it was flying around uncontrolled. A total acrimonious situation was coming into being. Someone had to knock some sense. As a Moderator, it was my call!

It is not my intention to stifle debate and discussion. All one desires is moderate language, less of acrimoney and less of bad blood! Is that asking too much? I think not.

I shall keep a close watch on this thread and let us hope I don't have to be Merlin and make posts and posters vanish with the magic words, Abracadabra!

I don't want to stifle discussion and debate, all is requested is moderate language and with less acrimony and bad blood!

The other Moderators have also been asked to monitor closely!

[amit]

RayC,

I respect your decision.

My protest was because you deleted my post in which I was clarifying something which I considered was very important.

There was an allegation that I called BC names.

In that deleted post I had just put in quotes what I actually said about BC: And that was that he's a highly respected commentator who has a particular POV (I went on to explain what I thought that view was). Surely that was not bad mouthing BC?

I wanted to clarify that point as, knowing how fast threads move, I knew that people who are reading wouldn't remember or bother to check what I actually wrote several pages back and a few days ago.

And thus the clever Strawman that I called someone of the stature of BC names - even though totally irrelevant to what I was posting today - would stick and undermine any point I made about the subject of discussion. If you notice there was already an attempt to state that I called the ACM a liar when I didn't even make a single comment about him in any of my posts.

Anyway all that's water down the bridge. My apologies to you, other Moderators and Posters for not being able to keep my cool against deliberate provocation. My last post to you on this issue.

Cheers!

[Philip]

ACM Krishnaswamy (retd) is a most distinguished and respected service chief and to accuse him of lying is doing a great disservice to this patriot.Let us not accuse him thus.He is writing based upon his decades of experience.He has the most vital point to be considered if we are to buy major ticket US weapon systems and their eqpt.

The key issues are,whether the US wil support these systems with spares,etc.,during a conflict,say with Pak?
Whether it will impose sanctions durind such a conflict?
Whether India can make modifications to such eqpt. found to be needed from our requirements and in our environment?
How and where will we allow inspections under EUM requirements,especially during a crisis?

We all know that India made many improvements and modifications to a host of Russian eqpt.,which the Russians never prevented us form doing.In fact,they wanted us to use their products and perfect them,adopting the modifications in later variants,especially in MIG-21 fighters.India has NO problems on this score with all its other defence suppliers.WE are putting the entire security of the nation at great risk if we succumb to US pressure.I've just posted an AWST report quoting the US general in charge of the 18th Air Force,who says that the SU-30 is very reliable,Russian aircraft much more reliable these days than before and that barring the Raptor,the SU-30 is the best aircraft flying.

So,in dealing with the US we should put our interests first,nit that of the US.India should bargain from the position as a giant of nation,not behave like a rabbit.

[somnath]

The key issues are,whether the US wil support these systems with spares,etc.,during a conflict,say with Pak?
Whether it will impose sanctions durind such a conflict?
Whether India can make modifications to such eqpt. found to be needed from our requirements and in our environment?
How and where will we allow inspections under EUM requirements,especially during a crisis?

We all know that India made many improvements and modifications to a host of Russian eqpt.,which the Russians never prevented us form doing.In fact,they wanted us to use their products and perfect them,adopting the modifications in later variants,especially in MIG-21 fighters.India has NO problems on this score with all its other defence suppliers.WE are putting the entire security of the nation at great risk if we succumb to US pressure.I've just posted an AWST report quoting the US general in charge of the 18th Air Force,who says that the SU-30 is very reliable,Russian aircraft much more reliable these days than before and that barring the Raptor,the SU-30 is the best aircraft flying.

So,in dealing with the US we should put our interests first,nit that of the US.India should bargain from the position as a giant of nation,not behave like a rabbit.

Phillip, threat of sanctions and disruption of spares supply during wars is a huge red herring..During wars, what would get utlised are the war wastage reserves - we wont be waiting for the US to fly in supplies...Sanctions during the war even if they are imposed, wont matter unless there are already sanctions of some sort in place that have degraded the capacities...In which case our planning needs to be different..

India has "made" many modifications to legacy equipment, but most of it has been in collaboration with the OEM, incl the Mig 21..The Bison was under upgrade in Russia for years before the final product came out..To assume that when it comes to that 10-15 years later, the US will not play ball is preciselty the sort of worst case scenarios convertd to likely case..

We buy, say the F18...In 15 years time they need an MLU..Let consider where India would be then..Our GDP would be in the 4-5 trillion dollar range, we would have 3-4% of global merchandise trade and much higher of global services trade..And we would still be hungry for a range of American stuff for which there would be other alternatives...Why wouldnt Boeing be doing our bidding?

We are today negotiating from a position of strength..that is why we have everyone lining up outside our doors, instead of single vendor situations we had till a few years back...

EUM is but a small, small option that we buy in the bigger scheme of things..There would be many more trade-offs to make, many more deals to be done if the reall issues realting to India's MIC are addressed..

[Sanku]

Somnath, I dont understand, no other country has a EUMA and none of the offensive clauses and US has, is it your claim that despite two very different agreements and two very different past and present behavior the future for the two trajectories will be same?

Please reply in one or two lines and stick directly to the question asked, please dont go into the Chinese role in Manchurian conflict and the repercussion there of and so on.

[negi]

I guess most of us who have posted here have only burnt our fingers and increased BP and over a document which none of us have read .

Now if we all are discussing this topic based on our assumptions then it would help each of us to list those else we might only end up attracting trigger happy admins.

My initial response to the development was pretty much influenced by past track record of GOTUS and hence I was and am skeptical of signing the EUMA document in advance which will cover all our future arms deals with US.

1. If EUMA has references to 'not sharing any IP related with the product/platform with a third party vendor/OEM' then it means we cannot MKise anything bought from Unkil.

2. Also I suspect if EUMA has anything to do with guarding the IP/technology we should not expect any TOT or other IP sharing from Unkil for obvious reasons , this would be a major blow for our F-18sh fanboys (including me ) on MRCA dhaga .

3. EUMA has references to approval from GOTUS prior to mating a nuke to the platform or even using the platform against a country .


Now all three of my assumptions might be incorrect and the actual document might indeed be about 'inspection of the platform by GOTUS' only; in that case I have no issues with the EUMA.

[Dilbu]

Now the basic question is whether we have actually signed on any paper for this end loser.. er user agreement? If it was only chai-biskoot and the usual press statement for DDM consumption, then all we are doing here is unnecessarily increase the blood pressure.

[enqyoob]

Would u guys mind terribly if I delete every post that either questions the integrity of the ACM or points out that someone did that?

If you would mind, pls let me know so I can get started.

[putnanja]

N^3, I think the posts should stand so that we can understand the thought process of some people(incl me ). JMHO.

[RajeshA]

Sorry if already posted

No open, unilateral access to military bases under EUMA: PM: PTI

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday defended the Indo-US end-user monitoring arrangements (EUMA) for defence equipment, saying the pact "does not compromise" the country's sovereignty as there was no provision for "unilateral" verification of imported systems.

"There is nothing in the text that compromises India's sovereignty...There is no provision for unilateral verification by the US on imported defence equipment. India has a sovereign right," Singh told Lok Sabha while making an intervention during a debate on his recent foreign visits.

Asserting that the arrangements have introduced "an element of predictability," Singh said "any verification has to follow a request and it will be decided only on mutually-accepted date and venue."

Responding to BJP's Yashwant Sinha, who had sought clarity on EUMA agreed during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit, Singh said "I give an assurance to all members to guarantee sovereignty and integrity of India."

Describing the arrangements as "a generic formulation," Singh said this would apply for future supplies from America, adding that the negotiations for inspections would happen case-by-case.

Opposition has criticised the government for finalising the EUMA, which they said compromised India's sovereignty by giving open access to military sites and equipment for US inspections.

What does 'unilateral inspections' mean? When was Indian sovereignty ever in question? The question is about intrusive inspections.

How does one conduct 'unilateral inspections'? A fauji opens a room in some Army base, and sees a gora there.
Fauji: "Ey, how did you come in here, who let you in?"
Gora: "Aw, it is awright. I am just conducting unilateral inspections under EUMA. Nobody needs to let me in."

All inspections would involve Indian personnel guiding the American inspectors to the imported equipment. So what is the point of saying 'no unilateral inspections'. The concerns about EUMA lie elsewhere.

Or does it mean that we will be having bilateral inspections. India too would be sending our own inspectors to check out some equipment. Which is not surprising! We will be inspecting the goods that would be offered or purchased. It depends how one interprets 'inspections'.

[nachiket]

The key issues are,whether the US wil support these systems with spares,etc.,during a conflict,say with Pak?
Whether it will impose sanctions durind such a conflict?
Whether India can make modifications to such eqpt. found to be needed from our requirements and in our environment?
How and where will we allow inspections under EUM requirements,especially during a crisis?


So,in dealing with the US we should put our interests first,nit that of the US.India should bargain from the position as a giant of nation,not behave like a rabbit.

The isuue of stoppage of spares and support during future wars has nothing to do with the EUMA since it outlines no such clause, e.g. No spares will be provided if India attacks country X etc.
The threat of a foreign supplier doing something like that is always present even if a "good" EUMA which places zero restrictions on use/modification of weapon systems has been signed with that country.
If the Indian Armed forces are really worried that the US will do this, they will factor this into their calculations when they evaluate the equipment and will recommend a weapon system from another manufacturer to the MoD, won't they? But it doesn't hurt us to keep the US equipment in the competition in order to increase the competition and get a better deal from the others.

[nachiket]

Absolutely, what the hurry to wrap up the EUMA (from Indian perspective) let those who give us the best conditions take the MRCA contracts, why first accept a condition and tie our hands behind our back.

You can look at it from another angle. Now that we have signed the EUMA (if indeed we have done so) we know exactly what strings come attached with Unkil's maal. If we dont like those strings we dont buy from Unkil.
The evaluation committee can weigh the pros and cons of those conditions against any technological superiority offered by Unkil's jets over the others and decide accordingly.
Before the EUMA we did not know what restrictions would be placed on the aircraft.
Trying to negotiate an MRCA-specific EUMA after the eval committee has recommended an F-series jet would have been problematic IMO. What if the eval committe thereafter does not like the conditions and changes their recommendation? This would definitely cause delays among other things. You know how easy it is for Corruption and scandal accusations to start flying around in DDM.

[putnanja]

India had signed two earlier End User Agreements

...
Business Standard has learned that it was the US State Department that insisted on secrecy.
...
This agreement is the third “standard” US-India EUM Agreement, which will apply to all defence equipment sourced from the US. The first was concluded in 1951, followed by a second in 1958. Both of those were formalised through an exchange of secret diplomatic notes. This time, too, there is no signed agreement, only an exchange of diplomatic notes in which India accepts and confirms the agreement.
...
...
The first EUM Agreement was finalised in 1951, when the US considered India a useful ally against communism, particularly that emanating from China. India needed weaponry; the US agreed to supply it under the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement of 1949.
...
The State Department letter noted that “A reply to the effect that these understandings are correct will be considered as constituting an agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India, which shall come into force on the date of the note in reply from the Government of India.”

Nine days later, on 16th March 1951, Vijaya Laxmi Pandit confirmed that India was “in agreement with the terms, conditions and assurances proposed.”
...
The second EUM Agreement followed a similar process, after a new channel for American military aid, the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1954, superseded the earlier Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement, 1949. On 16th April 1958, America’s officiating ambassador in New Delhi, Winthrop Brown, wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru (who was Foreign Minister as well as PM) proposing that the agreements signed by Vijaya Laxmi Pandit be extended to this pact. On 17th December 1958, Foreign Secretary, S Dutt, wrote to the US ambassador conveying India’s acceptance.

Like both those EUMs, the current agreement too exists only in the form of an exchange of notes between India and the US. But the Indian negotiators of the latest agreement have apparently managed to strike off the earlier draconian provisions.

...
During the negotiations, the US argued forcefully that it would never be asking India for inspections anyway. Indian MoD officials pointed to the intrusive inspections the US regularly carries out in Peshawar of night vision equipment supplied to the Pakistan Army. But the US negotiators responded, “This is not what we do with democracies. We trust democracies”.

The final stumbling block was over the phrase “legitimate self-defence”, which is the only circumstance in which India can use US-supplied weaponry. Indian negotiators were concerned that, if India used US-supplied C-130J aircraft to drop paratroopers into another country, in a Maldives-type operation, would it qualify as “legitimate self-defence”? The US side pointed out that it was using aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq in what it considers legitimate self-defence.
...
...

[RayC]

RayC,

I respect your decision.

My protest was because you deleted my post in which I was clarifying something which I considered was very important.

There was an allegation that I called BC names.

In that deleted post I had just put in quotes what I actually said about BC: And that was that he's a highly respected commentator who has a particular POV (I went on to explain what I thought that view was). Surely that was not bad mouthing BC?

I wanted to clarify that point as, knowing how fast threads move, I knew that people who are reading wouldn't remember or bother to check what I actually wrote several pages back and a few days ago.

And thus the clever Strawman that I called someone of the stature of BC names - even though totally irrelevant to what I was posting today - would stick and undermine any point I made about the subject of discussion. If you notice there was already an attempt to state that I called the ACM a liar when I didn't even make a single comment about him in any of my posts.

Anyway all that's water down the bridge. My apologies to you, other Moderators and Posters for not being able to keep my cool against deliberate provocation. My last post to you on this issue.

Cheers!

I appreciate your sentiments.

But understand the hassle that Moderators have to go through!

Threads move fast.

They also have to live their lives beyond BRF.

Then then drop in a thread and see a chaos.

They try to discern what's got someone's goat.

Tongue in cheek insinuations require interpretation.

It worries the Moderator - what does the poster mean. Is he insulting? Or is it that he does not have the command of the language? Or he is brazen and insulting? Or is he simply dumb?

Tough to understand in the cyberspace.

And yet, one should not be drastic and so there is this moral dilemma.

So, bear with us.

Don't take things personally if we act with good interest in mind.

I don't have to explain my position, but I thought maybe you would realise that it is not an easy job that we do and we are not totally cavalier!

[Sanku]

Absolutely, what the hurry to wrap up the EUMA (from Indian perspective) let those who give us the best conditions take the MRCA contracts, why first accept a condition and tie our hands behind our back.

You can look at it from another angle. Now that we have signed the EUMA (if indeed we have done so) we know exactly what strings come attached with Unkil's maal. If we dont like those strings we dont buy from Unkil.
The evaluation committee can weigh the pros and cons of those conditions against any technological superiority offered by Unkil's jets over the others and decide accordingly.

No, we already know what string comes attached, we have plenty of experience as well as experience of others to learn from. This is not a new thing.

The whole problem is that no one except PMO (read MMS) wants this (plenty of cribs on record, and on this thread) yet PMO overrides folks and goes for it. Why? (Also similar stuff was done for nuke deal)

What adds to the mistrust is sterling quotes by MMS like "no unilateral inspection" as RayC said, what the hell is a unilateral inspection? Does MMS have a clue?

As of now there is very little confidence that PMO will not similarly override the institution, DESPITE the EUMA.

[nachiket]

No, we already know what string comes attached, we have plenty of experience as well as experience of others to learn from. This is not a new thing.

If that is the case then why is the IAF even considering american jets for the MMRCA order?
It can be one of two cases-
1. The attached strings are acceptable
2. They do not know what strings are going to be attached and are/were hoping that they would be acceptable.
The only other possibility is that the IAF never wanted to send RFPs to Lockheed and Boeing, just the others and were forced to do so by the PMO. That is hard to believe and if this is the level to which the PMO is stooping to satisfy Unkil with total disregard for Indian interests then the EUMA is the least of our problems.

[Sanku]

The only other possibility is that the IAF never wanted to send RFPs to Lockheed and Boeing, just the others and were forced to do so by the PMO.

IAF just wanted more M2Ks.. all this Nautanki is from GoI (PMO)

That is hard to believe and if this is the level to which the PMO is stooping to satisfy Unkil with total disregard for Indian interests then the EUMA is the least of our problems.

Correct, its just that its a milestone.

[RayC]

I thank you all.

The thread is moving great.

Great discussion and great education from different points of view and ever so civil.

Good show!

And thank you all, once again!

[Virupaksha]

Phillip, threat of sanctions and disruption of spares supply during wars is a huge red herring..During wars, what would get utlised are the war wastage reserves - we wont be waiting for the US to fly in supplies...Sanctions during the war even if they are imposed, wont matter unless there are already sanctions of some sort in place that have degraded the capacities...In which case our planning needs to be different..

You are welcome to the real world. In this world, the babus dont allow you to top war wastage reserves and seeing the money "saved" there as an achievement. Remember Kargil and all the stuff we had to buy urgently and this was for a war in a small small section of the border.

India has "made" many modifications to legacy equipment, but most of it has been in collaboration with the OEM, incl the Mig 21..The Bison was under upgrade in Russia for years before the final product came out..To assume that when it comes to that 10-15 years later, the US will not play ball is preciselty the sort of worst case scenarios convertd to likely case..

so you are saying that US will allow us to put in Russian radar, Indian HMDs, french engines and so on, if you wish.

and your "belief" in US comes from? Mine come from the history of US dealings with various countries including India.

We buy, say the F18...In 15 years time they need an MLU..Let consider where India would be then..Our GDP would be in the 4-5 trillion dollar range, we would have 3-4% of global merchandise trade and much higher of global services trade..And we would still be hungry for a range of American stuff for which there would be other alternatives...Why wouldnt Boeing be doing our bidding?

yada yada yada, all these things I remember to have read in Moody's, Standard and poor,Gold Man Sach and WB reports. We have all seen how they turn out and you want to put the national defence of India dependent on these paper reports.

The fact that we may be stronger later infact means the exact opposite. Dont sacrifice and dont sell out your interests today! wait for the day and paddle like a duck till the time comes. Until then, just bide the time and what is needed immediately instead of trying to barter away the longer term interests.

We are today negotiating from a position of strength..that is why we have everyone lining up outside our doors, instead of single vendor situations we had till a few years back...

really? and those single vendor situations gave us mig21 at friend ship prices. these multiple vendors are here to garner excessive profits and you need that strength to negotiate instead of giving away the exact points of strength/leverages we have, which is what this EUA is -especially seeing the time it is bartered away, at the threshold of testing for MRCA.

Instead of talking about some future possible/forecasted event 15-20 years down the line, what exactly did we gain by agreeing to this "arrangement" EUM?

EUM is but a small, small option that we buy in the bigger scheme of things..There would be many more trade-offs to make, many more deals to be done if the reall issues realting to India's MIC are addressed..

doesnt mean that EUM is not a sell-out? We can possibly gain some advantages from mirages which we can see today only as mirages doesnt mean we should give away the leverages we already hold. It might be a smaller sellout in the bigger (dreamy) scheme of things.

You may be right, for I have not seen the future 15-20 years down the line. So please excuse me if you want to base your premise of your view point on what may/may not happen at that time.

[Virupaksha]

India had signed two earlier End User Agreements

...

Like both those EUMs, the current agreement too exists only in the form of an exchange of notes between India and the US. But the Indian negotiators of the latest agreement have apparently managed to strike off the earlier draconian provisions.

what draconian provisions? atleast one sample line of examples would have been nice to understand..

...
During the negotiations, the US argued forcefully that it would never be asking India for inspections anyway. Indian MoD officials pointed to the intrusive inspections the US regularly carries out in Peshawar of night vision equipment supplied to the Pakistan Army. But the US negotiators responded, “This is not what we do with democracies. We trust democracies”.

Oh! right, I forgot, they trust democracies Saddam, Mugabe during 80s were democracies. Musharraf was the highest point which a democracy can achieve. They trust democracies so much that they cant trust them with ENR. Actually I cant remember a thing which they trust democracies with except yaa, I remember words.

They dont trust their side kick, Pakistan to whom they give free F-16s, but they will trust us. If they trust us anyway why put it on paper?

The final stumbling block was over the phrase “legitimate self-defence”, which is the only circumstance in which India can use US-supplied weaponry. Indian negotiators were concerned that, if India used US-supplied C-130J aircraft to drop paratroopers into another country, in a Maldives-type operation, would it qualify as “legitimate self-defence”? The US side pointed out that it was using aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq in what it considers legitimate self-defence.
...
...

Would the 1971 war have been classified as legitimate self-defence by US? or is it only US approved wars?

[somnath]

^^^ The article, again speculative, has certain other things as well..

The deal was struck when the US conceded that physical verification need not take place in forward operational locations, and that the date and time would be mutually settled.

All articles till date point out that the inspection, if at all, will be at a time and place of our choosing...

But this is an important point

Like both those EUMs, the current agreement too exists only in the form of an exchange of notes between India and the US.

Which means that it is much easier to rescind, than a formal agreement..We can insist on another exchange of notes, if it came to that...

this is v v important..

the Mutual Security Act of 1954, that Act as amended from time to time, and such other applicable United States laws as may come into effect.” This time around, retrospective applicability will not apply.

Which means all conditions become "ceterus paribus" constants, not a variable that we need to deal with..

[Sanku]

Somnath; you are not answering any substantial question raised on past history exact clauses and future possibilities.

Edited. Keep your cool!

He is entitled to say what he has to say and you need not get frustrated and advice where he is to post his 'whine' as you call it!

RayC

[amit]

this is v v important..

the Mutual Security Act of 1954, that Act as amended from time to time, and such other applicable United States laws as may come into effect.” This time around, retrospective applicability will not apply.

Which means all conditions become "ceterus paribus" constants, not a variable that we need to deal with..

From the reports I've seen it's not only retrospective applicability that has been done away with. For any change in US law to be applicable to future defence contracts - that is any contracts after the law is passed - mutual consent would be needed to change the wording/text of the EUMA.