Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Philip » 29 Aug 2009 16:44

Is Dr.Manmohan Sigh adopting a "Nelsonian Eye" regarding Pak's anti-terrorist actions? All I can see is that Pak is fighting those "bad" Taliban who are against it sharing its bed with Uncle Sam.What about the hordes of squealing porkis who are crossing into Indian terriotry to cause havoc in India?The so-called "good" Taliban or jehadis,intent upon liberating Kashmir.The morethe sad story of India dilomacy and securyt shennanigans unfolds under our purveyor of snake-oil,the more I feel that a rich "Uncle" has taken over both South and North Block!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 29 Aug 2009 17:17

Philip, the 'good Taliban' are not being proceeded against even when there are UN sanctions, even when proof is furnished and even when they have been caught red-handed. This is a 800 pound gorilla sitting right next to us in the same room and we pretend it is not there. Besides, editorial after editorial have been written recently in Paki newspapers on how it is important for India to re-start the dialogue before the next Mumbai happens and how India should not take any cold comfort from cold-start doctrine etc. It is simply blackmail that TSP has let loose on India and it is all a direct fall out of S-e-S.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 30 Aug 2009 14:12

If India can't start Peace Dialogue, then what was S-e-S all about ?: TSP FM Qureshi

A very good question for which there is no answer. However much we may fudge, we decided to divorce terrorism from talks and TSP is now demanding we stick to what we agreed (It is another matter that Pakistan never sticks to its committments or obligations or agreements)
if this was India’s position, “then what was Sharm-el-Sheikh, what was that agreement?”
He said it would now be clear to the world that Pakistan was eager to engage with India, and that it was Indian reluctance that was holding things up.
“Pakistan is willing to talk in a united voice; Pakistan has no malice in its heart; Pakistan is not afraid to talk; we are willing to sit at the table and we know how to present our position,” Mr. Qureshi said.
“We have written extending a warm invitation to the new Foreign Secretary of India to come to Islamabad for the talks, but until now, there has been no reply to this,” the Foreign Minister said.

“If it has been agreed and committed to that dialogue is the only way forward, what’s there to feel shy about?” he asked.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13834
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 14:22

SSridhar wrote:If India can't start Peace Dialogue, then what was S-e-S all about ?: TSP FM Qureshi

A very good question for which there is no answer.

SeS, instead of being seen as a master stroke, was seen as a sell out in India. Even the kangress party and madam let MMS dry out in the sun for a week before bringing out the umbrella. The wound is still raw.

Here is the next part of the saga.
US, UK in sly bid to break impasse

Question is how long can MMS resist, given that our saviors are putting so much pressure.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13834
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby pankajs » 30 Aug 2009 17:24

Apologies if this has been posted before
----------------------------------------
Worried Sonia draws red lines for Manmohan
After a week-long standoff over the controversial Indo-Pak joint statement issued at Sharm El-Sheikh on July 16, Sonia Gandhi is believed to have sent word to prime minister Manmohan Singh to make suitable amends and correct the impression that the document was a "sellout" to Pakistan.

DNA understands that Sonia's message was conveyed to the PM after she met with her main troubleshooters, Pranab Mukherjee, AK Antony and Ahmed Patel, on Wednesday morning to discuss the fallout of the political and diplomatic storm into which the government has been sucked.

It speaks of the concern and apprehension in the top rung of the Congress that Mukherjee and Antony have now been authorised to act as watchdogs to steer the government and the party through the present crisis.

A highly-placed Congress source indicated that the PM has been apprised of the strong misgivings in the party over what happened at Sharm El-Sheikh. Some red lines have also been drawn and he has been urged to take the party into confidence in future before he launches any major initiative that overturns established policy. "What happened at Sharm El-Sheikh will not happen again," the source emphasised. The result of all this backroom activity has been a frenzied damage-control exercise by the government.

It began with the two ministers of state for external affairs making explanatory statements to the media on Thursday and will culminate in the PM taking the floor in the Lok Sabha on July 29 to reply to the scheduled debate on the joint statement.

Sonia has deputed finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and defence minister AK Antony to discuss with the PM the modalities of the course correction necessitated by widespread misgivings over the inclusion of contentious phrases in the Indo-Pak document. The reference to Balochistan and the delinking of the composite bilateral dialogue from action against terror have attracted criticism from within the Congress, the opposition parties and foreign policy experts. They have attacked the PM for making unprecedented concessions to Pakistan.

Minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor attempted a backtracking of sorts on Thursday. He told the media that the joint statement was merely a diplomatic paper, not a legal document. ``It is a diplomatic paper that is released to the press, different from legal papers. Ultimately, what matters is not the perception of words on paper, it is the conduct of government, he declared.

Former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra expressed surprise over Tharoors convoluted effort to extricate the government from the bungle at Sharm-el-Sheikh. "How can one talk like that? He has ended up rubbishing all the joint statements made so far all over the world. Of course, joint statements are not legal documents but they have diplomatic validity and indicate the intentions of governments, particularly when they are issued by heads of government or heads of state, he said.

The controversy over the Sharm-el-Sheikh statement has plunged the government into a crisis of sorts. It clearly cannot totally disown the document because of the repercussions on ties with Pakistan and the effort to resume dialogue. At the same time, it has to find a way of wriggling out of the corner in which it finds itself.

If this report is true, with Antony and Mukherjee being involved, we can expect some moderation in our US obsessed foreign policy. Another report had mentioned that MMS deliberately wanted a light weight MEA so that he could exercise full control over foreign policy.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 31 Aug 2009 09:29

SeS was neither a step forward, nor a step backward: NSA Narayanan
Excerpts relevant to this thread.
National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan on Saturday replied in the negative when asked whether the Sharm el-Sheikh summit between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan had been a step forward. “But,” he hastened to add, “it certainly wasn’t a step backward.” {So, what was it then, Mr. NSA ?}
“Frankly, we don’t see the reference to Balochistan as something culpatory, that there is something we are doing.” Mr. Gilani brought up the subject and this was mentioned in the statement. “Now whether we should have put out a complete rebuttal in the joint statement — well, it is a joint statement and it becomes difficult sometimes to put all these things down.”
‘Oh, there is some reference to Balochistan.’ But so what”? Mr. Narayanan added that “most of the western intelligence agencies who have the capabilities know we are not involved there.”
Reminded about the Sharm el-Sheikh statement’s reference to sharing real time, credible information about threats, Mr. Narayanan said India “will provide real time information but it is part of an intent.” If relations improved and India saw Pakistan taking action against the LeT and JeM, it could pass on information. But in any case, the expectation from the joint statement is that each country would inform the other about threats emanating from its territory, the NSA clarified. “If something is happening on their soil, who should be having that information? It’s that country’s intelligence agencies who should be monitoring this and passing on the information to us. And if we have information about something going to take place in Pakistan, we should be sharing it with them. That is what is real time [sharing]. For India to tell Pakistan, ‘We believe someone is going to attack us,’ is really not the intention. They are supposed to pass on to us real time intelligence, that ‘We understand something of this kind is going to happen, please take precautions, please take necessary care’.”

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13834
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby pankajs » 31 Aug 2009 10:14

Here is another interesting one from our NSA

No talks with Pak just yet: NSA
"We will not resume the composite dialogue until we see concrete evidence that Pakistan has acted against terrorism in a manner that we feel comfortable," national security advisor M K Narayanan said in an exclusive chat with TOI.


The line that caught my eyes
But as the PM prepares to become the first state visitor in the Obama White House, India is searching for that one Big Idea which would symbolise the new India-US relationship. Narayanan said it was the audacity of the nuclear deal which fired the India-US relationship back in 2005. In 2009, both countries are searching for another spark for a new administration in US.


1. Audacity of the nuclear deal ... hmm..
2. Another spark for a new administration in US. Looks like we are searching for a big Gift for Obama.

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 815
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby rkirankr » 31 Aug 2009 14:30

India is searching for that one Big Idea which would symbolise the new India-US relationship. Narayanan said it was the audacity of the nuclear deal which fired the India-US relationship back in 2005. In 2009, both countries are searching for another spark for a new administration in US.


Be prepared for one more sharmnaq GUBO at white house.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Philip » 31 Aug 2009 15:09

Ha!Ha! "Mike's" hilarious statement that S-al-S was neither a "step forward or backward" must be preserved for posterity.He has added to the legacy of diplomatic double-speak.Orwell would've been proud of him.Our good Dr.MMSingh did fly to S-al-S and back did he not,accompanied with a large entourage.If they did not go there for diplomatic business with their Paki counterparts then one must presume that they went to the resort for a holiday...at the taxpayer's expense.

S-al-S was actually a disaster for India.It exposed the utter incompetence of the Indian MEA,when our Foreign Sec. publicly said that there was "poor drafting",admitting "incompetence".Baluchistan appeared out of a timid rabbit's turban....sorry, hat,allowing our Paki purveyor's of terror to be excused from the dock of the accused for their diabolic attacks of 26/11.Thanks to S-al-S,India, I must grudgingly agree with "Mike" ,did not take a "small step" backward,instead,we took a "giant leap" downhill and have reached the bottom of the hill of our incompetence.While the pakis are still on top looking down at us in merrriment,we have also allowed the Chinese,to make full use of India's timidity by accelerating their intrusions into Indian territory in the Himalayan regions and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as their own.

NSA boss "Mike" can neither spin, nor is he a doctor.He has a great future in the Circus however!
Last edited by Philip on 31 Aug 2009 17:22, edited 1 time in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13834
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby pankajs » 31 Aug 2009 15:38

SeS was definitely a disaster for the good Dr. but may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the country.

After the nu-clear deal, the Sing is King Bravado and the election victory, it seems that Dr. Singh did really believe that he was the King. It has been said that he deliberately wanted a light weight MEA so that he could exercise full control over foreign policy.

He got the kind of MEA setup that he wanted and the 1st delivery of the team was a bouncer. It was quickly called a no ball, by the opposition, by the congress and by the public.

The sponsor (Sonia) was disappointed and the Dr. was left fending for himself and his team for a period of time. As per reports, watchdogs to steer the government and the party through the crisis, were appointed.

Even though the SeS was a disaster, in the long run, given the nature of things between India and Pakistan, will be over taken by history.

For the future, some red lines have also been drawn and he has been urged to take the party into confidence before he launches any major initiative that overturns established policy.

It is hoped that this will prevent other situations from developing where passage of time alone may not be able to save us.

JMT

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22437
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby chetak » 31 Aug 2009 20:12

pankajs wrote:Apologies if this has been posted before
----------------------------------------

The controversy over the Sharm-el-Sheikh statement has plunged the government into a crisis of sorts. It clearly cannot totally disown the document because of the repercussions on ties with Pakistan and the effort to resume dialogue. At the same time, it has to find a way of wriggling out of the corner in which it finds itself.

If this report is true, with Antony and Mukherjee being involved, we can expect some moderation in our US obsessed foreign policy. Another report had mentioned that MMS deliberately wanted a light weight MEA so that he could exercise full control over foreign policy.


Krishna is both a lightweight and a dandy. He reputedly designs his own clothes and is obsessive about them as well as his carefully coiffed looks.

Apparently Krishna seems to have mastered the sartorial cut but not the diplomatic thrust.

Definitely looks like a deliberate choice of a figurehead to head a crucial ministry. Why have professionals if you do not use them?
especially when dealing with the slippery porkis who always tend to subvert all our efforts with pappi jhappi.

Nothing like having someone like karuna from tamilnadu as the FM, inscrutable and always with his shades on. Not many can understand him when he speaks or even know if he is awake.

"Parkalam" meaning lets see, is all he says and more often than not he breaks out into some really bad poetry. By the time the traditional silk shawls are draped around the shoulders of the porki delegation, the meeting would have over run the allotted time.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby arun » 01 Sep 2009 09:00

Ajit Doval, former head of the Intelligence Bureau is unimpressed with our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s conduct at Sharm el Sheikh:

Abject surrender at Sharm-el-Sheikh

Ajit Doval

First Published : 01 Sep 2009 11:09:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 01 Sep 2009 12:45:34 AM IST

Whatever the mode of engagement — war or diplomacy — nations interact to maximise their national interest. In adverse conditions, like defeat in war, they work to minimise their losses. The icing of ideology, morality, justice, global and human interest is often just trappings added to lend legitimacy and acceptability to what they mostly lack. The degree of success in furthering one’s national interests is determined by a nation’s comprehensive state power and the will and vision of its leadership to exercise it.

Notwithstanding its decisive edge in terms of state power, India has failed to further its interests vis-à-vis Pakistan. Without any legal or political locus standi it has allowed Pakistan to become a stakeholder in Kashmir. Despite being guilty of violating norms of international behaviour Pakistan has gone unpunished though its sponsorship of terrorism has led to thousands of deaths. Worse, it has constricted India’s options and forced it to the negotiating table in a position of weakness. Sharm-el-Sheikh is where Pakistan got away unscathed after the Mumbai carnage and inveigled India to the negotiating table. …………………..

Express Buzz

Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Satya_anveshi » 01 Sep 2009 09:10

Do refer to the interview I posted in the J&K thread. In the concluding 5 minutes, Yasin Malik sheds some light on his meeting with MMS and later his exchange with Vajpayee.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Philip » 01 Sep 2009 15:31

Not just surrender,but "abject surrender"! Ajit Doval's scathing denunciation of our purveyor of snake oil and his MEA entourage is perhaps the most severe indictment yet from one who had earlier headed the IB.It is the defence and security agencies who have to finally bear the brunt of our leaders' shennaigans.They must be made aware of the consequences of their actions and words,which might seem innocuous (Baluchistan),but as Doval has eminently pointed out,has let Pak off the terrorist hook and actullay allowed them to put India on the defensive.As he has written,Gen.bandicoot the Musha-rat,regards his Kargil disaster as a diplomatic victory by putting kashmir on the map of dispute once again.He says that in the future,the Pakis might yet again take to adventurism,(this time I feel in a well-coordinated pincer move with China) to justify their demand for accomodation in Kashmir,where he actual fact is that Pak has to evacuate POK!

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13834
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby pankajs » 01 Sep 2009 16:55

India mulls over next step on Pakistan
New Delhi: With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh likely to have another “sidelines” meeting with the President or the Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad November-end, India is considering the strategy it should adopt in the interim to make that high-level encounter more meaningful — and less controversial — than the July 16 Sharm el-Sheikh event.

Since Prime Ministers have always driven Pakistan policy and Dr. Singh is an outlier in his own government on the question of engagement with Islamabad, this strategy is being worked out at the highest level, with the Ministry of External Affairs playing only a limited role.

As matters stand, the two Foreign Secretaries are supposed to meet “as often as necessary,” paving the way for the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan to discuss matters during the U.N. General Assembly session later this month.

Under the pre-existing cycle of visits before last November’s terrorist attacks, it is the turn of the Indian Foreign Secretary to visit Islamabad, a point made by the Pakistani side when it extended an invitation to Nirupama Rao. But with the Indian security establishment worried about another attack and concerned about Pakistan’s unwillingness to act decisively against anti-India terrorist groups, New Delhi is in no mood to signal the appearance of ‘normality’ that a visit to Islamabad would convey.

High-level sources confirmed to The Hindu on Monday that Ms. Rao will meet her counterpart, Salman Bashir, only in New York, at most one day before S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi sit down to take stock of the bilateral relationship.

Asked whether more than one meeting between the Foreign Secretaries might lead to a more fruitful ministerial interaction, an MEA official said that what mattered was the content of the meetings and not their frequency. “Meetings are like punctuation marks,” he said. “Just because you have more punctuation doesn’t mean the paragraph is better.”

Though MEA officials insist that the content of the New York meeting would be limited to a discussion of Pakistan’s actions against terrorism, the actual brief is being worked out by the PMO. Dr. Singh appears keen to identify elements which could push Islamabad to do more on the terror front while also advancing other Indian interests. But officials said progress in the Mumbai probe and trial was a key metric, as was a demonstration of Pakistani willingness to act against those still seeking to target India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 01 Sep 2009 17:13

pankajs wrote:India mulls over next step on Pakistan
. . . But officials said progress in the Mumbai probe and trial was a key metric, as was a demonstration of Pakistani willingness to act against those still seeking to target India.[/b]


That is a big 'But', at least for normal SDREs. That's where all the confusion lies wrt the SeS declaration.

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby CRamS » 01 Sep 2009 19:58

Philip wrote:Not just surrender,but "abject surrender"! Ajit Doval's scathing denunciation of our purveyor of snake oil and his MEA entourage is perhaps the most severe indictment yet from one who had earlier headed the IB.It is the defence and security agencies who have to finally bear the brunt of our leaders' shennaigans.They must be made aware of the consequences of their actions and words,which might seem innocuous (Baluchistan),but as Doval has eminently pointed out,has let Pak off the terrorist hook and actullay allowed them to put India on the defensive.As he has written,Gen.bandicoot the Musha-rat,regards his Kargil disaster as a diplomatic victory by putting kashmir on the map of dispute once again.He says that in the future,the Pakis might yet again take to adventurism,(this time I feel in a well-coordinated pincer move with China) to justify their demand for accomodation in Kashmir,where he actual fact is that Pak has to evacuate POK!


Phillip, its a failure of the Indian nation as a whole. Don't let the defense and security agencies off the hook. If I were PM of India, and I asked the defense agencies, can we hit TSP with minimum damage to us, and the answer is NO, we will loose 20,000 troops in a stalemate; what we end up with is this peace process BS. I am just waiting for one instance where Indian defense and security forces strike back at TSP and humiliate them. As for the Indian elites, here is a sampling of a super successful NRI friend of mine in response to MKN's revelation that TSP acted only because of USA, and the suggestion of how to deal with TSP short of war. In his US-centric mind; groups like LeT don't even exist, not to mention how naieve and pathetic his understanding of TSP is; typical of Indian middle class that voted en masse for MMS. Bottom line: its the failure of India as a whole; India deserevs the leaders like MMS that it gets.


These guys are following a brilliant strategy. They are working with the Americans to keep things quiet on the Indian end so that all the resources can be completely focused on eliminating the Taliban and making sure Pakistan does not become a Taliban state. India's problems will grow exponentially if Pakistan becomes a Taliban state. The next step would be to install a stable government and getting Pakistan on a track for economic prosperity.

The 8 ways to hurt Pakistan baloney you sent the other day is another figment of the Hindu terrorist mind without thinking about the consequences. All those 8 ideas are old ideas and called economic and/or social sanctions. I agree with xxxx and xxxx that those sanctions will only make the Pakis more desperate and do more harm to India. It is like detroying the slums in Bangalore and hoping that will keep the slum dwellers quiet.


chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22437
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby chetak » 01 Sep 2009 20:20

Here's a version of how our very own lone ranger operated at sharm el sheik



' How statement was drafted with some in dark- Point man on Pakistan was not taken to Egypt, another summit veteran was kept out of the picture ’

In an attempt to reconstruct what actually transpired in Sharm-el-Sheikh, this correspondent has discovered that within the Indian delegation, there was no discussion, no tossing of words or no effort to nuance potentially sensitive disagreements in the crafting of the joint statement. Everything that is the norm in drafting a document of this kind was jettisoned in Sharm-el-Sheikh and a veil of secrecy was thrown on the entire process on the Indian side.

T.C.A. Raghavan is South Block’s point man on Pakistan, a former deputy high commissioner in Islamabad who could have provided inputs to Prime Minister Singh and avoided the predicament in which the UPA government now finds itself trapped on cross-border relations. But Raghavan was not taken to Sharm-el-Sheikh.

The explanation in South Block for not including Raghavan in the team that went to Sharm-el-Sheikh is that gem of an excuse civil servants revel in: there is no precedent.

This correspondent was told that the only time a joint secretary in charge of Pakistan was taken to an Indo-Pak summit held on the sidelines of another meeting was when Atal Bihari Vajpayee went for the UN General Assembly and met Pervez Musharraf in New York on its sidelines.

That is not entirely true, but that is beside the point. Vivek Katju, the joint secretary who accompanied at least two Prime Ministers to summit meetings with Pakistanis was in Sharm-el-Sheikh in a different capacity. He is now special secretary in charge of international organisations: that included the non-aligned movement whose summit was what brought Singh and Gilani to Sharm-el-Sheikh in the first place.

This correspondent has established that Katju was kept completely in the dark about the joint statement that was in the works in Sharm-el-Sheikh. He could have been consulted for a second opinion, if only because he handled Pakistan during the Kargil crisis. Besides, he would have been a touchstone precisely about the sensitivities on what has now given the UPA a bad name in its dealings with Pakistan.

Katju is a Kashmiri and has professed a hard line towards Islamabad throughout his professional life.

Or, maybe, it was precisely for that reason that Katju was kept in the dark. In Sharm-el-Sheikh, by the time Katju first read the joint statement, it had already been issued as a media release. He held his head between his hands and stared at the document in disbelief, according to a colleague who was with him at that time.

At this point, Singh made a big mistake which is haunting him now. Instead of seizing the initiative and telling the two foreign secretaries what to put into the statement, Singh left it to Gilani to define the contents of the statement, which he ably did — the way his country wanted it.

That outline contained the reference to Balochistan and delinked terrorism from the bilateral dialogue framework. Singh suggested some amendments, but the changes he suggested did not specifically exclude references to Balochistan or to the composite dialogue. Like good civil servants, Menon and Bashir received their orders and dutifully produced a joint statement that their bosses wanted.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 01 Sep 2009 20:28

At this point, Singh made a big mistake which is haunting him now. Instead of seizing the initiative and telling the two foreign secretaries what to put into the statement, Singh left it to Gilani to define the contents of the statement,


How nice! We have a prime minister who outsources the drafting of a joint statement at an international summit to the opposing party. What next? Drafting of Indian army war doctrine to be outsourced to General Kiyani?

Who planted this nincompoop into the PM's chair? Uncle Sam? Whom does he represent exactly? From "Indians are grateful to British Raj for ruling India and civilizing them" to outsourcing of the joint statement at Sharm El Shek, something doesn't seem right with our PM. This is not normal behaviour. How close was he to the Americans in his IMF days? Who chose him for the PM's chair bypassing dozen other Congress leaders?

amardeep_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 46
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 20:04

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby amardeep_s » 01 Sep 2009 20:45

We have a prime minister who outsources the drafting of a joint statement at an international summit to the opposing party.

sanjay ji, chankyan socho...
.
.
.
.
.
.
gilani is an indian agent :-)

in other news,

http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/01/stories ... 130100.htm

India mulls over next step on Pakistan

New Delhi: With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh likely to have another “sidelines” meeting with the President or the Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad November-end, India is considering the strategy it should adopt in the interim to make that high-level encounter more meaningful — and less controversial — than the July 16 Sharm el-Sheikh event.

Since Prime Ministers have always driven Pakistan policy and Dr. Singh is an outlier in his own government on the question of engagement with Islamabad, this strategy is being worked out at the highest level, with the Ministry of External Affairs playing only a limited role.

High-level sources confirmed to The Hindu on Monday that Ms. Rao will meet her counterpart, Salman Bashir, only in New York, at most one day before S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi sit down to take stock of the bilateral relationship.

Asked whether more than one meeting between the Foreign Secretaries might lead to a more fruitful ministerial interaction, an MEA official said that what mattered was the content of the meetings and not their frequency. “Meetings are like punctuation marks,” he said. “Just because you have more punctuation doesn’t mean the paragraph is better.”

Though MEA officials insist that the content of the New York meeting would be limited to a discussion of Pakistan’s actions against terrorism, the actual brief is being worked out by the PMO. Dr. Singh appears keen to identify elements which could push Islamabad to do more on the terror front while also advancing other Indian interests. But officials said progress in the Mumbai probe and trial was a key metric, as was a demonstration of Pakistani willingness to act against those still seeking to target India.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby RajeshA » 01 Sep 2009 20:51

Can Joint-Statements be banned by a law passed in Parliament?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby svinayak » 01 Sep 2009 20:52

CRamS wrote: As for the Indian elites, here is a sampling of a super successful NRI friend of mine in response to MKN's revelation that TSP acted only because of USA, and the suggestion of how to deal with TSP short of war. In his US-centric mind; groups like LeT don't even exist, not to mention how naieve and pathetic his understanding of TSP is; typical of Indian middle class that voted en masse for MMS. Bottom line: its the failure of India as a whole; India deserevs the leaders like MMS that it gets.


These guys are following a brilliant strategy. They are working with the Americans to keep things quiet on the Indian end so that all the resources can be completely focused on eliminating the Taliban and making sure Pakistan does not become a Taliban state. India's problems will grow exponentially if Pakistan becomes a Taliban state. The next step would be to install a stable government and getting Pakistan on a track for economic prosperity.

The 8 ways to hurt Pakistan baloney you sent the other day is another figment of the Hindu terrorist mind without thinking about the consequences. All those 8 ideas are old ideas and called economic and/or social sanctions. I agree with xxxx and xxxx that those sanctions will only make the Pakis more desperate and do more harm to India. It is like detroying the slums in Bangalore and hoping that will keep the slum dwellers quiet.


Whole bunch of educated elite have bought the US propoganda of keeping the Taliban out of Pakistan and helping Pakistan to be stable even at the cost of India. They even diss India even if their own mothers are killed by the terrorist.

sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby sanjaychoudhry » 01 Sep 2009 21:09

Krishna is both a lightweight and a dandy. He reputedly designs his own clothes and is obsessive about them as well as his carefully coiffed looks.


Oh God, we barely managed to get rid of one dandy from the home ministry, and now another dandy has moved into another ministry. Is there some tailoring test before one becomes eligible to become a minister in the Indian cabinet? It seems the older and uglier the man, the more he becomes obsessed with clothes and appearance and considers himself as a magnet for women.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby RayC » 01 Sep 2009 22:11

Yes, Krishna is a well dressed gentleman, suave and polished. Dandy? Well, not as I saw him.

He is witty. I shot two golf balls by miscuing into his house and he came out and asked me if I were an artillery officer!
:mrgreen:

If I am permitted to add, vanity is not the sole preserve of older people! :wink: :mrgreen:

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22437
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby chetak » 02 Sep 2009 00:23

RayC wrote:Yes, Krishna is a well dressed gentleman, suave and polished. Dandy? Well, not as I saw him.

He is witty. I shot two golf balls by miscuing into his house and he came out and asked me if I were an artillery officer!
:mrgreen:

If I am permitted to add, vanity is not the sole preserve of older people! :wink: :mrgreen:




Age has caught up with him sir. A man who spends more time instructing his tailor than carefully whetting draft joint statements is a dandy.

And also that eternal Indian Indian characteristic wish of leaving a mark on history has sidelined him in Karnataka politics. As governor of Maharashtra he spent more time in Bangalore than in Bombay. Local "bigwigs" in Karnataka want him out of their hair. Presto, he magically reappears in the Foreign ministry.

Well turned out as always but now somewhat a Bertie Woosterish type of figure considering his disastrous sharm el sheik debut as the FM. Why did he have to make stupid statements during his australian visit?

A karunanidhi like "Parkalam" ( and immediately back to slumber behind dark shades) would have sufficed instead of his gushing endorsement of the silly australian commie PM.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22437
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby chetak » 03 Sep 2009 23:53

SM Krishna has unexpectedly landed up in Karachi.

Coincidence????

Hope we don't see anymore "Joint Statements"

' Plane carrying Indian minister lands at Karachi airport ’


GEO Pakistan

Updated at: 2343 PST, Thursday, September 03, 2009
KARACHI: A flight of UAE airliner from Dubai to New Delhi carrying Indian external minister S.M. Krishna has landed at Karachi airport, sources said here on Thursday.

The plane did not receive clearance from New Delhi airport due to inclement weather, so it had to land at Karachi airport, sources added.

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1234
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Nihat » 04 Sep 2009 00:34

I really don't see SM Krishna as anything more than a slightly bulked up version of Shivraj Patil , doesn't seem to have any bark leave alone bite and is far more likely to embarrass us than Mukherjee would ever even come close to.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2009 00:48

A bigger one is set for Washington DC at end of this month.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22437
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby chetak » 04 Sep 2009 01:15

ramana wrote:A bigger one is set for Washington DC at end of this month.



Waiting with trepidation and bated breath to see what mms pulls out his band gala in washington.

After all, he has to listen to his master's voice and sing for his supper.

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 815
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby rkirankr » 04 Sep 2009 13:12

ramana wrote:A bigger one is set for Washington DC at end of this month.

Can Jingoes contribute to compile a list of probable sharmnaaq things which will be done in Amirkhan by MMS

rkirankr
BRFite
Posts: 815
Joined: 17 Apr 2009 11:05

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby rkirankr » 04 Sep 2009 13:13

First one could be a compromise on CTBT or atleast a firm resolve annpunced publicly not to test

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby enqyoob » 04 Sep 2009 14:03

This ro-dho is STILL going on? Maybe it's time for a name-change to BR-DF?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 04 Sep 2009 14:59

It is still going on because the after-effects have just started.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1503
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Sumeet » 04 Sep 2009 18:59



Pak has to decide what kind of ties it wants: India

New Delhi: India on Friday rejected Pakistan's claim that adequate evidence was not available to prosecute Jamaat-ud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed and said it must act against the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks as it has to "decide" what kind of ties it wants with New Delhi.

Official sources pointed out that Pakistan has already admitted that the 26/11 attacks were planned and executed by its nationals from its soil and hence should have information about them. "We are only assisting that process," they said.

They noted that India has regularly given information and evidence as and when it was collected and collated.

India has also made it clear that it was ready to provide more information whenever available, they said.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby RoyG » 04 Sep 2009 19:59

Aren't the past 60 years indicative of the kind of ties they want? I can't believe we are engaged in this futile exercise of trying to convince the crackhead next door to check into rehab. Meanwhile, this junkie and his dealer are quietly sharpening everything they've got for one final assault on our house. :-?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23907
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby SSridhar » 05 Sep 2009 19:12

Delay in talks will help terrorists: Gilani

The S-e-S effect.
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Saturday that delay in resuming India-Pakistan talks will only help terrorists {in other words, the State of Pakistan} in achieving their nefarious designs.


There have been too many such threats/blackmails issued in the last one month. Obviously, something is being planned and TSP will turn around to say it was because we didn't talk and we didn't share real-time info with them etc. etc.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby arun » 08 Sep 2009 12:33

X Post.

Excerpted, portion devoted to Sharam el Sheikh and our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s foolhardy commitment to talk to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from interview of Home Minister P Chidambaram by Al Jazeera’s Hamish Macdonald:

UPDATED ON:
Monday, September 07, 2009
10:22 Mecca time, 07:22 GMT ………………..

Engaging with Pakistan

At what level of the Pakistani leadership is this decision being taken not to pursue this information?

I wish I knew. How can I answer that question? All I know is that despite the promises made to India, that they will investigate these cases, go to the bottom of the truth and prosecute, they have not kept that promise.

This is part of the problem though isn't it? You have decided not to continue sending your foreign minister to meet with Pakistan's foreign minister as agreed at the Sharm-el-Shaikh conference earlier this year. You say you wish you knew, surely that’s the best way to find out?

Don't mix up the things. We are only talking today about the Mumbai attacks. We are not talking about the larger foreign policy issue. If you wish to talk… foreign policy issues and what further steps to take, then that is a separate occasion and you should discuss this with the foreign minister.

But why not continue to engage with Pakistan if there is such crucial information that needs to be exchanged. Why not continue meeting with them?

We have said that any dialogue with Pakistan is dependent upon Pakistan prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators and dismantling the terror infrastructure. There is no evidence of either. So that is our position. Some may disagree with that position but that is the position of the Indian government.

But in Sharm el-Shaikh in July when all of this was discussed, the leaders of both countries agreed that the attacks on Mumbai should not be linked in any way or should not affect in any way the relationship between the two countries and as a display of that the foreign ministers of the two countries would meet as often as possible in the lead up to this month's UN General Assembly. Now India has decided to stop sending its foreign minister. You can see why it is difficult for us to believe … that India is serious about engaging with Pakistan?

As I said, this discussion between you and me today is confined to the Mumbai attacks. I think you are turning the sentence of that statement on its head. The prime minister has clarified repeatedly, in parliament and outside, that [the] sentence does not mean what you say it does. What it means is that you cannot fail to carry out your obligation to punish the perpetrators ... Pakistan cannot fail to carry out its obligation to punish the perpetrators by making talks [on] other issues a condition …. You have to go ahead and do what you promised to do.

But isn't that just what you have done? Made those continuing talks a condition?

Of course we have. We have said it immediately after December 1. It is a condition, that you will punish the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. That has been our position since December. Sharm el-Shaikh will not change that position. Although that statement is being interpreted the other way.

The interior minister of Pakistan, your equal on that side of the border, has been quoted as saying that "Mumbai was an intelligence failure and if Mumbai police had shared the intelligence with them, they would have been able to prevent it".

If we had the intelligence about an attack before [it] took place, we would have prevented that attack. There was a failure of intelligence at some level in India, I have admitted that already. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about post-Mumbai attack. Pakistan promised to prosecute and punish the perpetrators. Has it done so? The answer is no. Should they do so? The answer is yes.

Al Jazeera

csharma
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby csharma » 08 Sep 2009 13:24

Chidambaram inspires confidence as HM. What was SeS then? MMS's joint statement has been rejected by the Congress and the govt. That is a very welcome thing.

US and Uk must be wondering what just happened. On top that India refuses to talk to Holbrooke.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20702
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby Philip » 08 Sep 2009 15:35

Chidambaram was clearly irritated and frustrated when interviewed about Pak's perfidy and filibustering tacttics on prosecuting the accused of 26/11.He called Pak's tactics a "charade",but strangely said that he would still answer Pak's queries,contradicting an earlier statement (last time) of his during the interview,if only to prevent Pak from using it as an excuse.However,clearly the time has almost come before India says enough is enough.Sensing this mood,Pak might put on a show trial where it can later find the accused innocent,to wild celebrations all around,perhaps some two years from now! The case will drag on and on,who knows if MMS will still be in the saddle by then and it will be "ususal service" between India and Pak.The west will be happy because we will still be squabbling,not fighting and upsetting their gameplan.

To avoid this from happening,India needs to take a very firm stand diplomatically first,punishing Pak for its perfidy and tarnishing its reputation internationally.It will put pressure upon the US to hesitate even further about selling arms to Pak that could be used against India.If the US continues its licentious and perverted relationship with the TSP,then it will have to lose any so-called strategic relationship with India and the prospect of any defence deals.Stopping all overflights and expulsion of Paki diplomats,sealing of the borders is the bare minimum that we could do to Pak to retain our honour and prestige.The victims of 26/11 must be avenged in some manner or the other.Pretending that we can still "talk" to Pak is an illusion and an insult to those butchered by Pak.Teaching them a military lesson along the border/LOC is another matter best left to the military men who could take advantage of the opportunities that they come across.

In addition,we could also ban all international aircraft overflying Pak or emanating from Pak entering Indian airspace and vice versa,as well as merchant shipping touching any Paki port or transiting India for a Paki destination.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54384
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Capitulation at Sharm el Sheikh

Postby ramana » 08 Sep 2009 22:00

Lost in all the fizzle hungama and the dirge for YSR, it was PC who was the first responder to both these crises.

He was the one how stated the official line of dismissing K Santhanam. And in case of YSR's missing helicopter he was at the center of the Union response.

MHA-> NSA-> SG

And in this above interview he is speaking what SMK should be.


Are we seeing a new consolidation going on?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dumal and 32 guests