India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 25 May 2016 23:35

Want to send a US designed EMALS equipped INS Vishaal to Chabahar, first get US permission!!

Su-30MKI with Russian RADARs have been at the Red Flag exercises many times though not using all modes. The contradiction is striking. In any case, US EMALS doesn't make it any less Indian ship, except of periodic 'watch' etc. This is one of many things repeatedly pointed out here and waved over with smooth talk.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 26 May 2016 03:28

NRao wrote: You must have already voted for Trump - absentee ballot?

NRao, looks like my reference to "Made In China" led you to quickly judge my voting preference. Trrrrump or Bilberry are both working just like mannequins work for the guys working behind the cash register at the deep end of the department stores. Sorry, no absentee ballot.

NRao wrote: I was told, about 15 years ago, LSE logic they said, that closer economic ties trump military adventurism. Do not know, but India's largest trading partner is China. India looks towards China as the #1 financier. And, yet, the largest and growing threat is China. Looks to me that Indians have not sensed it as yet, but, that window to recover is closing pretty quick. So, no one is dragging India into anything, but for sure the IN and perhaps the IAF are looking for help. There is already deep cooperation on security issues, defense is a natural next step. Of course there is a political angle that has slowed down the process.

From the US standpoint, it started on 2000, with the visit of Clinton to India.

But this is for sure, it is not a US initiative. There are those in the Indian services that have been pushing for a tie up some sort. Neither one wants an "alliance", but very close cooperation on certain specific matters, for sure yes.

Well, it is a LSE logic so how can it be wrong? Everything LSE does or says must be right. The "window of recover" with respect to China and Pakistan is long gone. What are you talking about closing pretty quick. The time to tackle Pakistan was before they were loaded with their nooclear toys. The co-operation between US and India has long partnership ahead in tech, medicine, infrastructure, finance etc, but anchoring it using "China-must-be-your-enemy-thus-you-must-come-on-our-side" is not helping.

NRao wrote:So let India take the first step and stop economic trades with China. Lead.

Of course, that is exactly what you want.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 26 May 2016 12:57

US backs India-Iran Chabahar port deal despite residual suspicion over Tehran - Chidanand Rajghatta, ToI

The Obama administration on Tuesday batted for India with regards to New Delhi's energy initiative with Iran and Afghanistan via Chabahar, amid residual suspicion and misgivings among some lawmakers whether there could be a strategic and military dimension to the tripartite agreement.

US senators closely examined assistant secretary of state for South Asia Nisha Desai Biswal on the Chabahar deal during a hearing, but the official said Washington recognized that from New Delhi's perspective that Iran represents a gateway into Afghanistan and Central Asia. She had not seen any sign of Indian engagement with Tehran in areas such as military cooperation, which might be of concern to the United States, she added.

"For India to be able to contribute to the economic development of Afghanistan, it needs access that it does not readily have across its land boundary. And India is seeking to deepen its energy relationship with the Central Asian countries and looking for routes that would facilitate that," Desai-Biswal told the Senate foreign relations committee, assuring members that the Obama administration has been "very clear with the Indians what our security concerns have been and we would continue to engage them on those issues."

"They (Indians) have been very responsive and receptive to our briefings, to what we believe the lines are. And we have to examine the details of the Chabahar announcement to see where it falls in that place," she added.

Given President Barack Obama's own outreach towards Iran and US difficulty in maintaining a toe-hold in landlocked Afghanistan because of its problems with Pakistan, Washington is broadly supportive of the Chabahar deal, particularly since it outflanks the China-Pakistan axis in neighboring Gwadar. But such is the reflexive suspicion in US over Iran, often stimulated by the so-called Israeli lobby, that many lawmakers still have reservations about any deal with Tehran.

While some senators wanted to know if the deal to develop the Chabahar port violated any sanctions against Iran, others wanted to know if India was ready to sign a formal security cooperation agreement with the US during Prime Minister Modi's visit to Washington next month. India and the United States have already strengthened their security cooperation in several areas and ''We're looking at what additional areas we can engage in to deepen that cooperation," Biswal replied cautiously.

The pow-wow over India-Iran relations came amid a precipitous slide in US-Pakistan ties over the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mulla Mansour, purportedly while he was returning from Iran under the impression that Pakistan had bought an insurance for him against drone strikes because he was a key figure in talks.

But US officials said he was taken out because he was an obstacle to peace. "Mansour represented an effort to rekindle the war, rekindle the conflict, re-stoke the violence in Afghanistan, and was not interested in pursuing peace. We believe that an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process is the way ultimately to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan," state department spokesman Mark Toner said.

Pakistan's de facto military ruler Raheel Sharif also jumped into the fray on Tuesday, summoning US ambassador to Islamabad David Hale to the GHQ and warning {Look at this. The COAS 'summons' the US Ambassador to GHQ and warns him. The civilian government is allowing that, the American Ambassador doe not refuse to go to Rawalpindi. Strange fellows the Americans and Pakistanis} that Pakistan-US ties would be affected, even as the Pakistani media has been kvetching about why Mansour was killed only after entering Pakistan and now while he was more accessible while traveling freely in the Gulf.

TV anchors have been working up a lather wondering if Iran sold him down the drain, even as some Pakistani commentators have been marveling at India's ability to strike a balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia, something Pakistan has been unable to do.

On its part, the Obama administration has pretty much said it will continue to attack terrorist targets in Pakistan if they don't sue for peace and Islamabad and Rawalpindi can stuff it if does not like it.

QUESTION: Do you trust Pakistan when it comes to war against terrorism?

State department spokesman Mark Toner: I think that we have been very clear-eyed and very clear in our interaction with Pakistan where we've believed that they need to do more to root out terrorists, as I said, who find safe haven on some of their territory, and we're going to continue to do that. I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: But is it fair to say, given that you didn't inform Pakistan before the attack, that you do not trust them on these sensitive issues?

Toner: Again, I think what I said just now holds, which is that operational security trumps a need to inform other governments.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 26 May 2016 18:17

NRao wrote:ST,

.....

Just that this scenario has been playing - at least - since 1997. Very frustrating to see Indians in the same boat for that many years.

+1. For moi, I have watched this happen time and again since 1960.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 May 2016 18:22

Data point.

Lockheed Eyes Tata to Help Land Next Big India Warplane Deal

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 May 2016 00:24

Trump has reached the magic number of 1,237 delegates to become the Republican nominee.
http://n.pr/1U9fytN

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 May 2016 00:28

Good possibility that Trump can be the next POTUS.

Confident xenophobic vs fake insider

A sizeable Sanders voteshare will go to Trump which will make it very close.

Personally, I think Trump will win.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2016 06:46

Expert: India, U.S. Relationship with China Make ‘Hard Actions’ Difficult in South China Sea, Indian Ocean

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 May 2016 10:20

From the above,

Karnad said that in Asia the United States is not necessarily regarded as a reliable ally. . . . As he has written in the past and said again at Heritage, “nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of security.”

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 May 2016 11:20

Parrikar has gone on record today as saying italy has vetoed indians MTCR entry.

that only leaves the NSG in june, which china will do the needful.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 May 2016 11:30

NRao wrote:Data point.

Lockheed Eyes Tata to Help Land Next Big India Warplane Deal

ever since the radia tapes episode, this once illustrious group has lost it's sheen and now comes across as an entity motivated by profit like any other really ordinary money grubbing business group.

no more, no less. just like infy has reduced itself to just another effing business onlee, through the shenanigans of the murthys', pere et fils.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 27 May 2016 12:57

The divinity of the Ratan Tata or any other people loved by MSM is an illusion created by MSM. No one even questioned the decision on Corus, and we know how badly they were hit. Tata Motorcar business is a mess. No one is ready to ask the question - how far he is responsible for that.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 27 May 2016 14:52

Parrikar has gone on record today as saying italy has vetoed indians MTCR entry.

ATM be praised! I suppose this means that Indian missile R&D HAS to continue

instead of importing more shiny mijjiles from Italy etc?

What is the impact of not being inside MTCR?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2016 19:37

‘At LAC, we’re defensive, not offensive’

Will the Logistics Support Agreement (Logistics Exchange Memorandum Agreement) be signed during the PM’s visit to the US in June?

Parrikar: I don’t link it with the PM’s visit. If it happens, it will be good. We are trying. A draft has been exchanged and I will receive the file in a day or two. Minor issues remain but we are close to an understanding.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 May 2016 20:13

an illusion created by MSM

Unfortunate that no one is to create positive vibe about online process of mines/spectrum auctions and for same corporates who participated.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 May 2016 20:47

Logistics agreement with US will help India: Manohar Parrikar

[quote]NEW DELHI: A much-debated India-US logistics agreement will be of immense benefit as it will give India access to US military bases worldwide and does not involve any "war excchanges", while any support for operational purposes will only be on a case-by-case basis, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has said.

He clarified that it will not involve any "war exchange".

"It does not involve any war exchanges, or manpower coming on our bases. This is only refueling, re-watering and food supplies," he said, adding that it in return gives India access to US bases across the globe.

The logistics agreement, "in principal" approval to which was given by both sides during US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter's recent India visit, is centered only on fuel, water and food support, Parrikar said.

The minister also said that the agreement is not what was agreed upon during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's tenure, which, he said developed "cold feet" on the pact.

"They (UPA government) agreed on everything but it did not go to the cabinet. They developed cold feet. But we are not moving forward with their agreement. We are drafting a new agreement, drafts for which are being exchanged," Parrikar said.

The minister also said that the agreement is not what was agreed upon during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's tenure, which, he said developed "cold feet" on the pact.

"They (UPA government) agreed on everything but it did not go to the cabinet. They developed cold feet. But we are not moving forward with their agreement. We are drafting a new agreement, drafts for which are being exchanged," Parrikar said.

"Our agreement is for any international humanitarian assistance or normal exercises. We can take the benefit from each other's facilities. It does not involve any operational use, for that approval will be needed on case-to-case basis," the minister said.

"We will get the same facilities on all their bases across the globe... Suppose they have a base in Bahrain, my ships going to that area need not take a tanker with them. It can replenish itself in Bahrain. I will also benefit. Ten years back, Indian ships were not travelling that much. Now, you see four-five of our ships in some port or the other. This is actually increasing the experience of our sailors. We now require many facilities in many places, we will also avail those," the minister said.

He added that the facilities will not free, and payments will be made.[/quote]

member_23370 · Post by **member_23370** » 27 May 2016 20:52

What USN bases does IN need? In SCS they need Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia as allies.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 27 May 2016 21:22

Bheeshma wrote:What USN bases does IN need? In SCS they need Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia as allies.

Unless, Modi is planning to attack canada, then we can use some US bases to replenish and launch the strike from there.

This entire logistics agreement is bad in faith and not a requirement for us at all.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 May 2016 21:57

>>"It does not involve any war exchanges, or manpower coming on our bases. This is only refueling, re-watering and food supplies," he said, adding that it in return gives India access to US bases across the globe.

Though, by and large there is no need for us to sign the LEMOA. The above quote is welcome. No war exchanges means no forward positioning of ammunitions or arms and hence no need for a protection force, forward positioned is the expectation. We need to see the LEMOA now. Yet, folks do think, why is someone pushing for a logistics accounting agreement as a pre-condition for buying (oops sorry, licensing) arms!!

If MOD is not getting the larger picture, they are being myopic or yet again fooling the Indian public. As with the nuclear agreement, hardly anyone realizes what a failure and restrictive experience it has been. The price for all of this is paid for by India's strategic power ambitions. There was hardly any debate for India's latest commitment at the NSS to which our PM went in like a munna and agreed to a restrictive use of our nuclear stock pile that NO other NWS does - with consequences that neither our armed forces understand, as they are out of the loop and our MEA on a different page from our power ambitions. Sad that those with the vision, never put in the execution resources to back the vision and those with the capability to execute are not aligned with the vision.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2016 23:20

chetak wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:What USN bases does IN need? In SCS they need Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia as allies.
Unless, Modi is planning to attack canada, then we can use some US bases to replenish and launch the strike from there.

This entire logistics agreement is bad in faith and not a requirement for us at all.

[JK]
Unless Modiji wants to attack Canada for humanitarian reasons, Modiji will need to ask for permission
[/JK]

What I find missing is "rest" and "repair". IIRC they were there in the original agreement. But, let us wait till the agreement comes out.

So a refueler does not need to accompany IN ships, how about armories?

*Anything else is on a case-by-case basis.*

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 28 May 2016 00:30

The delusional extents some Indian-Americans go to

AMERICA TATTWAMASI

‘America Tattwamasi’ is a unique mix of religion, politics and spirituality, expressed in poems trying to fathom the depth of philosophy, surrounding our life and the universe. It has offered a wonderful vision of looking at America, the only superpower on earth, by perusing its national character from the perspective of the Upanishadic doctrine, often described as the ‘universality of spirit’. Truly speaking, ‘America Tattwamasi’ is a revolutionary outburst of a Hindu heart (since the author has identified himself as a Hindu in one of his poems) that dares identify America with fundamental principles and ideals of the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita. Not least, it goes to the extent of describing this country as the only de facto Hindu state on earth. Perhaps much to the consternation of the entire world, it further segues into the proposition that America be formally declared a Hindu State. Meantime, by incorporating a poem entitled ‘Kalopanishad’ the author seems to have dared make a bold attempt at redefining and reinventing major religions of the world, virtually in keeping with changed realities of the 21st century. Specially, the mordant criticism this book has reserved for the anomalies and distortions that have plagued major religions, is unusually dauntless and intrepid. Trenchant discomfort expressed about some of the policies of incumbent administration - that the author believes have sapped America’s confidence – has added to the piquancy of the book. In sum, ‘America Tattwamasi’ represents an echo of Emerson and Whitman combined.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2016 01:55

Private LSA. Worth a read. Mention of IN in the article too!!!!!!!!! Long article.

The man who seduced the 7th Fleet

prat.patel · Post by **prat.patel** » 28 May 2016 02:28

chetak wrote:
Bheeshma wrote:What USN bases does IN need? In SCS they need Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia as allies.
Unless, Modi is planning to attack canada, then we can use some US bases to replenish and launch the strike from there.

This entire logistics agreement is bad in faith and not a requirement for us at all.

My humble question - for my better undersatnding of this subject -
US has bases all around the world. Even in the areas which are in our sphere of influence. They have one in Indian Ocean, they have in gulf and in South China sea and in nearby Pacific too.
So will it not help our ships sailing in these regions?

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 28 May 2016 02:40

^^ your question could be turned around and asked like: Given that the US already has so many bases in our region, what will they gain by this agreement? Therein lies the answer.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 May 2016 03:35

arshyam wrote:^^ your question could be turned around and asked like: Given that the US already has so many bases in our region, what will they gain by this agreement? Therein lies the answer.

Bases are one thing but supplies (food, consumables, R&R) may be another. Everything has to be flown into Diego Garcia, Manama etc at great cost.). Singapore and Oz can provide stuff locally because there is a local market. But between SPORE/OZ and the Gulf, local sourcing is impossible except for India where there is a huge economy that produces the same stuff locally.

Plus, in Indian waters, there is more security vs in the Gulf areas.

That's what I've been led to believe—but who knows what evil could be behind a seemingly straightforward request.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2016 03:45

prat.patel wrote:
chetak wrote:
Unless, Modi is planning to attack canada, then we can use some US bases to replenish and launch the strike from there.

This entire logistics agreement is bad in faith and not a requirement for us at all.
My humble question - for my better undersatnding of this subject -
US has bases all around the world. Even in the areas which are in our sphere of influence. They have one in Indian Ocean, they have in gulf and in South China sea and in nearby Pacific too.
So will it not help our ships sailing in these regions?

It is important, IMHO, to note that much (95%+) of this during peace time. Thus the emphasis on "humanitarian", ........

"Bases" has a connotation of some sort of permanency and military. LEMOA has neither permanency nor any thing to do with "troops" or "warfighters" other than perhaps "rest" (they may see Mumbai by night or something like that) (see Hong Kong below).

Is it possible that it could/would go into effect during war? Certainly. But it would on a case-by-case basis and would not fall under LEMOA (with India).

Also posting the "LSA" with the Philippines:

Partial:

4. The following items are not eligible for transfer under this Agreement and are specifically excluded from its coverage:
a. weapon systems;
b. major end items of equipment (except for the lease or loan of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List); and
c. initial quantities of replacement and spare parts associated with the initial order quantity of major items of organizational equipment covered in tables of allowances and distribution, tables of organization and equipment, and equivalent documents.

5. Also excluded from transfer by either Party under this Agreement are any items the transfer of which is prohibited by its laws or regulations. The following items are currently excluded from transfer by United States laws and regulations:
a. guided missiles;
b. naval mines and torpedoes;
c. nuclear ammunition and included items such as warheads, warhead sections,
projectiles, demolition munitions, and training ammunition;
d. cartridge and air crew escape propulsion system (AEPS) components

.....................................

and

Logistic supplies, support, and services which may be provided as approved by the Parties under this Agreement are defined and subject to the following:
(1) Supplies - Food, water, petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, ammunition, spare parts and components, provided during an approved activity.
(2) Support and Services - Billeting, transportation (including airlift), communication services, medical services, operations support (and construction
and use of temporary structures incident to operations support), training services, repair and maintenance services, calibration services, storage services, and port services, during an approved activity. Storage units and ports shall at all times remain under the control and supervision of the host state.
(3) Logistic supplies, support, and services include the temporary use of general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal items of military equipment which are not designated as significant military equipment on the U.S. Munitions List, during an approved activity.

No United States military base, facility, or permanent structure shall be constructed, established, or allowed under this Agreement.

Point being India can negotiate anything within her agreement.

The US has agreements with SL and Pakistan (IIRC). The one with India would allow the US to use better Indian facilities for repairs and such.

Recently China withdrew permission for a USN Carrier to dock in Hong Kong - a ritual for decades.

Finally, I do not think LSA, although a foundational agreement, has anything to do with purchasing US equipment. The agreement associated for that I think is the CISMOA (and not even BCA). I would be very surprised if India signed the CISMOA.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 May 2016 03:51

NRao wrote:Recently China withdrew permission for a USN Carrier to dock in Hong Kong - a ritual for decades.

Good, as it rightly should. It would be travesty for China to allow US warships in its waters. Hong Kong is a shining example of how the Chinese rightly view the American/Western presence in its neighborhood, as a sign of colonialism. Plain and simple.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2016 05:34

ShauryaT wrote:
NRao wrote:Recently China withdrew permission for a USN Carrier to dock in Hong Kong - a ritual for decades.
Good, as it rightly should. It would be travesty for China to allow US warships in its waters. Hong Kong is a shining example of how the Chinese rightly view the American/Western presence in its neighborhood, as a sign of colonialism. Plain and simple.

Err. US ships have been visiting Hong Kong for eons. Still do. They will allow the next time around or so.

However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.

India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.

There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.

#colonialism

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 May 2016 07:16

NRao wrote:However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.

India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.

There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.

IMVHO, that is an incorrect comparison and does not add any weight to the pro-LSA argument.

India has also been allowing American Naval assets to dock for R&R, fuelling etc without any LSA just as China has been doing.

It is easier to decline when there is no agreement than when there is one even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.

Overflight is quite another matter. We should not confuse that with LSA.

In any case, the anti-LSA argument is infructuous at this stage because this government sees merit in that.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 28 May 2016 08:00

SSridhar wrote:
NRao wrote:However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.

India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.

There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.
IMVHO, that is an incorrect comparson and does not add any weight to the pro-LSA argument.

India has also been allowing American Naval assets to dock for R&R, fuelling etc without any LSA just as China has been doing.

It is easy to decline when there is no agreement even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.

Overflight is quite another matter. We should not confuse that with LSA.

In any case, the anti-LSA argument is infructuous at this stage because this government sees merit in that.

the amrekis are quietly pushing for full diplomatic immunity of all their military personnel on Indian soil, so potentially you could have thousands of rednecks on R&R with open permission to do whatever the hell they please and all will be forgiven because of the full diplomatic immunity??

why do we need these aholes on our soil and why are the amrekis so desperately pushing for it now, during the dying days of the obama presidency??

There is something afoot that is potentially nasty and that is not yet out in the public domain. Is the new incoming president going to be a problem because it sure looks like it's the amreki deep state that is pushing hard for this "agreement"

hosting the amrekis will rile up the nasties from kabul to kanyakumari. Modi does not need this nor does India

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 28 May 2016 08:37

To all masa bhakts this is all I say, this is "bharat rakshak" that means people who do raksha of our bharat and it is very important for the country to be free and preserve its strategic autonomy. The country has gone through colonialism of worst kind to add to that attempts to eradicate indic culture and all the pride associated with it but still sanatana dharma goes on.

Why do I care if massa wants it? -- Bharat do not need it (not an absolute necessity)
All the port fuelling with logistics etc can always be done without agreements as it has always been.
This is just another attempt to put congress oversight and medelling into internal affairs legaly binding way. Middle finger to LEMOA,

Also as they say in massa tongue "No way Jose not happening" , people can have wet dreams but modi is not signing it but we can have chai biscuit.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 May 2016 16:54

Many topics to respond to, so, will select a few:

I normally remove the poster's name - I prefer to discuss a topic, rather than the poster - but, will leave it for continuity.

krishna_krishna wrote: To all masa bhakts this is all I say, this is "bharat rakshak" that means people who do raksha of our bharat and it is very important for the country to be free and preserve its strategic autonomy.

{First and foremost please find out the meaning of "Bhakti", then we can discuss "masa bhakts". Nothing to do with "followers of".}

Times have changed, but BRiets, especially the older ones, have been stuck in time. Even Indian PM has moved on:

Modi in WSJ wrote: India has joined Washington in its calls for freedom of navigation, especially in the South China Sea, where China’s assertion of its territorial claims has unnerved neighbors. But on Wednesday the prime minister played down any friction with China, pointing to increasing trade and diplomatic exchanges between the two nations.

In the “relationship between China and the U.S., there are areas where they have substantial differences but there are also areas where they work closely,” Mr. Modi said. “This is the new way. If we want to ensure the success of this interdependent world, I think countries need to cooperate, but at the same time we also need to ensure that there is respect for international norms and international rules.”

There is a multi track mentality that has slid in. It is no longer a zero sum game. It is a very complex Venn diagram (actually discussed in detail in Yoga Vashishtha), where the interests of nations, political parties, as well as multi-nationals and local interests collide.

As it pertains to the "LSA", please let me know what the IN (Bharat bhakts) thinks about it. I am betting that the IN is perhaps the biggest backer of the LEMOA. I do not want to post other URLs because of BR penchant for labeling authors as paid, lifafa, etc (which has reduced BR to a biased site).

Bharat do not need it (not an absolute necessity)

And just to reiterate, I said this in 1997 or so (on BR), that India and the US will get close, not because I think it is a good thing, but because circumstances will force the two to get close - no options. However, I never dreamt that India would ever buy US items. All I meant was their policies would overlap in some areas. Good/bad/right/wrong is debatable and diff topic.

So, my point has always been - Bharat needs it (the alignment), it is in the best interest of Bharat. As I just posted, I think the IN would back the LEMOA. ????? (I would like comments on IN and LEMOA)

SSridhar wrote:
NRao wrote:However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.

India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.

There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.
IMVHO, that is an incorrect comparison and does not add any weight to the pro-LSA argument.

India has also been allowing American Naval assets to dock for R&R, fuelling etc without any LSA just as China has been doing.

It is easier to decline when there is no agreement than when there is one even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.

Overflight is quite another matter. We should not confuse that with LSA.

In any case, the anti-LSA argument is infructuous at this stage because this government sees merit in that.

Multiple things

1) So, "my government does not want to sign LSA" has been proved wrong. India does, even under the UPA it did. This gov has watered it down it looks like. Nonetheless, India "needs" a LEMOA.

Let me go a step further and state that the IN needs LEMOA for the IN to perform her job, tasked to her by the GoI, smoothly. I do not think this is an option, it is a requirement

2) I gave you the example of NATO countries declining permission to the US. Spain, Portugal, Italy are but a few example that declined in the past 10-15 years. ALL have some form of a "LSA" with the US, Italy has US warfighters on their soil to boot and yet they were able to decline. And, you have no comment - not a word - on that?

3) The deal with China/Hong Kong is actually 10 times worse than a "LSA". The US passed a law before China got control over Hong Kong (US Hong Kong Policy Act (of 1991?)) that actually sees Hong Kong in a totally different light - but, the US has not acted to follow that law. However, port visits of US naval assets predates China taking over Hong Kong and such visits are a continuation of that.

I just checked, China has declined ports visits twice before. First when Bush accorded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Medal of Honor (2007?) and again when the US "violated" the no-fly-zone (called something else) that China set up in the East China Sea (in 2009?). The recent decline is related to the SCS.

It is easier to decline when there is no agreement than when there is one even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.

Up to each nation. Nothing "easier" either way. Just say no. Spain/Portugal/Italy have done it.

General comments:

Seeing ghosts where there are none: "Forward positing of ammunition", Camel in the tent, "bases" - as a place to host US troops on Indian soil, "full diplomatic immunity", ...............................

Folks, this is your grand son's India. An India where, by 2050, the IMF/WB has predicted India to be 2nd in eco, with an ave income of $40,000 er year. Please invest time in grooming proper leaders for that era.

Let me end this post with:

Modi in WSJ wrote: India traditionally has been a nonaligned country reluctant to play a prominent role in global affairs . But over the past decade, it has formed ever-stronger links with the U.S. “Today, unlike before, India is not standing in a corner,” Mr. Modi said.

There in lies the difference. Lost to most Indians (here?), who have no clue of how potent "India" is.

Enough analysis. Act.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 May 2016 17:42

NRao wrote:I normally remove the poster's name - I prefer to discuss a topic, rather than the poster - but, will leave it for continuity.

If that is the case, we can all post anonymously, can't we? The inclusion of name tag in a reply does not mean we discuss the poster. It not only helps continuity as you realize, but helps somebody to search back to that post to understand the context, when the whole post is not quoted in the reply, which is largely the case.

1) So, "my government does not want to sign LSA" has been proved wrong. India does, even under the UPA it did. This gov has watered it down it looks like. Nonetheless, India "needs" a LEMOA.

I never made a statement that you quote. In fact, I have consistently said that while most Indians might reject the LSA, the government would go ahead and sign it.

Let me go a step further and state that the IN needs LEMOA for the IN to perform her job, tasked to her by the GoI, smoothly. I do not think this is an option, it is a requirement

You keep extolling the benefits of LSA and you have gone 'a step further' now. So, what is the next? That there is no benefit in this for the US and it is doing India a massive favour? By the way, I am yet to see you list all the benefits that would accrue to us, dumb Indians.

I gave you the example of NATO countries declining permission to the US. Spain, Portugal, Italy are but a few example that declined in the past 10-15 years. ALL have some form of a "LSA" with the US, Italy has US warfighters on their soil to boot and yet they were able to decline. And, you have no comment - not a word - on that?

Being an Indian, I do not follow the US relatinships and treaties with Spain, Portugal, Italy etc and what they do or do not do. I am least bothered. I would like to remind you of what you have said a little later in your post, "Up to each nation.". It is my perception that for a combination of reasons India might find it difficult to say "NO".

The deal with China/Hong Kong is actually 10 times worse than a "LSA". The US passed a law before China got control over Hong Kong (US Hong Kong Policy Act (of 1991?)) that actually sees Hong Kong in a totally different light - but, the US has not acted to follow that law. However, port visits of US naval assets predates China taking over Hong Kong and such visits are a continuation of that.

I just checked, China has declined ports visits twice before. First when Bush accorded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Medal of Honor (2007?) and again when the US "violated" the no-fly-zone (called something else) that China set up in the East China Sea (in 2009?). The recent decline is related to the SCS.

-- Same as above --

Nothing "easier" either way

Not true. It is definitely easier when there is no agreement.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 28 May 2016 18:42

NRao wrote: Err. US ships have been visiting Hong Kong for eons. Still do. They will allow the next time around or so.

However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.

India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.

There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.

#colonialism

The Hong Kong port call treaty has been negotiated by US pre-handover times. Another sign of colonial presence, as far as China is concerned. Lucky for the US that they are still honoring it.

If you are comparing India to NATO/EU countries then you are in serious disconnect with what the idea of India is and what her aspirations are and ought to be. India is comparable to only two other nation states as they exist today to determine her place at the high table. Towards that extent, I think it is the US that would have to seriously recalibrate its global dominance approaches and settle for a multi-polar world. Signing such agreements would be anathema to the other two, so why should India sign it. Your very comparisons to NATO/EU give away the serious disconnect you have with Indian aspirations and its innate capabilities. One does not act like a poodle one day and then suddenly grow balls. I do not know, why do some feel that we will find our rightful place "quietly" almost "sneak" through the back door. You do not sign something today and then dance around with tomorrow and leave after 20 years.

For all the protestations of NATO, when the time comes they have to yield to the interests of the larger power. Name me one instance where it really mattered to the US and it has not got its way with its treaty allies. When they have you by the balls through its MIC, a nation can do little other than yelp, when it matters not.

NRao: There is only ONE way for you to justify your argument and it is to openly admit that you think, it is in Indian best interests to be "allied" with the United States and bear its commensurate potential risks and rewards. In IOW: India cannot strike it on its own to protect her interests.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 May 2016 19:27

^^^"Name me one instance where it really mattered to the US and it has not got its way with its treaty allies."

It's not just treaty allies. The US can also very effectively squeeze enemies and bystanders too. Bringing India to heel on Iran was just the latest example. They even squeezed Russia on Iran.

^^"it is in Indian best interests to be "allied" with the United States and bear its commensurate potential risks and rewards. In IOW: India cannot strike it on its own to protect her interests."

This was the same argument I heard in the 1950s about non-alignment and then came 1962:

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... china-war/

Does anyone really think we are better matched today against the PRC?

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 28 May 2016 19:47

Does anyone really think we are better matched today against the PRC?

Yes sir I do. Modi is prime minister today not Mr Womaniser and a confident nation will fight anyone hard be it china , US or anybody else. We should continue to prepare hard for the coming battles though. Wars are not won by fancy weapons and GDP but soldiers, leaders with a strong heart.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 28 May 2016 20:26

ShauryaT wrote:If you are comparing India to NATO/EU countries then you are in serious disconnect with what the idea of India is and what her aspirations are and ought to be.

I'm pretty sure he was saying the exact opposite of what you're implying. If NATO/EU countries have been able to flatly reject US request for logistical support (to say nothing of direct military involvement) for its military campaigns, there should be little concern about India being unable to do the same, being only a 'strategic partner'.

India is comparable to only two other nation states as they exist today to determine her place at the high table. Towards that extent, I think it is the US that would have to seriously recalibrate its global dominance approaches and settle for a multi-polar world.

The US will do nothing of the sort. Its the nature of the world that will make it happen. And it IS happening right in front of our eyes. While China is facing some major economic headwinds right now, over the medium term it will become a true peer to the US - economically, then politically and then finally militarily - and over the long term possibly surpass it (the latter depending largely on demographics).

The point to note is that the US isn't doing us any favours and India in turn isn't handing out any IOUs. If anything, the US has been more eager to strengthen bilateral ties than India has. Our interests just happen to coincide and that too primarily on the strategic front. Hasn't stopped us from charting our own path whether it be with regard to the BRICS or AIIB or our (continuing) military purchases from Russia. The govt has at all stages proceeded with a judicious mix of confidence and caution (erring on the side of caution), and has so far done nothing to suggest that we're on the road to becoming a US 'lackey' or 'stooge'.

As for India deserving or demanding parity with the US & China, I'm afraid that's not the way the world works. When we build up the political and financial strength to form a third pole, it'll happen organically. And it WILL happen. But that eventuality is decades away. Meanwhile we still have to live in the present, with China on one end and Pakistan on the other.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 28 May 2016 21:18

+1 SSridharji

The references to Spain, Portugal, Italy, and HK keeps on reoccurring. This argument "by association" is kindergarten logic that so laughable. It is like beauty cream salesman convincing a prospect that he/she should buy the cream because his neighbor bought it, as if the prospect cares about his/her neighbor let alone his/her sense of personal care/judgement. Why the hell IN care about Spain, Portugal, Italy, and HK, regardless of when the LSAs were signed and how they may have demonstrated their independence? There is a also a BIG assumption that these denials were not orchestrated, like the saying in Marathi "I'll pretend as if I hit you, and you pretend as if you got seriously hurt". Lets go for the co-operation in technology, finance, infra, medicine etc.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 28 May 2016 22:14

^^^+100 SSridhar, Uday.

NRao, leaving all the crap not worth discussion, to your point below. Staying in a corner was India's own decision (one can debate whether that was right or not that's not the point). Point is India decides to whom to give favors, whom to ally or to be enemies with we were not and never be pooch of masa like ook or turkey or the list goes on.

Indians (here?) have more idea about bharat than deep state or its agents. We do whats in our national interest and massa can do whats in there. No love lost. Regarding Modi, we can bet lunch LEMOA not happening during modi's this vist. When modi says we would do something and not staying corner it could also be that on our own we would craft (read act) on a strategy that protects our national interest and not necessarily signing xyz agreement with massa. We will take steps to be friends with massa whenever its in our interest and close the door when we deem necessary.

No way Jose, we would definetly love chai biskut, bagels, donuts ityadi.

NRao wrote: Let me end this post with:

Modi in WSJ wrote: India traditionally has been a nonaligned country reluctant to play a prominent role in global affairs . But over the past decade, it has formed ever-stronger links with the U.S. “Today, unlike before, India is not standing in a corner,” Mr. Modi said.
There in lies the difference. Lost to most Indians (here?), who have no clue of how potent "India" is.

Enough analysis. Act.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 28 May 2016 23:43

Apologies for butting in SSridhar and NRao avargale, hope you don't mind if I say a few things.

NRao wrote:2) I gave you the example of NATO countries declining permission to the US. Spain, Portugal, Italy are but a few example that declined in the past 10-15 years. ALL have some form of a "LSA" with the US, Italy has US warfighters on their soil to boot and yet they were able to decline. And, you have no comment - not a word - on that?

I have a word or two on that

Code: Select all

Name	Population	Area(km2)
Italy	59,715,625	301,230
Spain	46,777,373	505,782

Source::Wiki

Code: Select all

Rank	State or union territory	Population		Area[15] 
09		Gujarat						60,383,628			196,024 km2 (75,685 sq mi)
10		Andhra Pradesh				49,386,799			160,205 km2 (61,855 sq mi)
11		Odisha							41,947,358			155,707 km2 (60,119 sq mi)

Source::Wiki

As you can see, you are comparing India's future behaviour with some 'countries' that are smaller than Indian states. Much smaller (see the rank of the state of similar size). Even if one were go only by sq. km, these countries are no bigger than other states within India. That is the difference between these countries and India. Ultimately, what you say is correct in the true legal sense, i.e. each country is a single unit irrespective of size; so if one small, albeit legally defined country did something, India (again, legally defined as one country) must do the same. But as a Bharat Rakshak, I for one don't agree as I look at India differently - she is one of the top 3 economies of the world today, with the potential of becoming number 1 in the near future. Given that, my worldview is very different and what tiny 'countries' like Spain and Italy do w.r.t. the US is irrelevant. India should, and must do, what she thinks is right, and for the right reasons.

NRao wrote:So, my point has always been - Bharat needs it (the alignment), it is in the best interest of Bharat. As I just posted, I think the IN would back the LEMOA. ????? (I would like comments on IN and LEMOA)

You have been saying this and the statement below for ages without any real suggestions, except for India to sign whatever agreement US wants us to sign.

NRao wrote:Enough analysis. Act.

Same here.

This is what I had asked on this very thread eons ago, and your response was as below:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p2004690

arshyam wrote:<snip>Why don't you post your analysis of what things will look like if India does what the US wants it to do? How our geo-strategic calculus will change vis-a-vis China, and how our strategic programmes will be impacted? Lastly, how will the persistent trouble to our west and the larger West Asian (not 'Middle East') region evolve?

My bottomline is simple, any signing of these 'foundational' agreements without corresponding demonstrable actions by the US on issues affecting us will be folly, and we will repent it in the years to come.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p2004708

NRao wrote:<snip>
Why don't you post your analysis of what things will look like if India does what the US wants it to do? How our geo-strategic calculus will change vis-a-vis China, and how our strategic programmes will be impacted? Lastly, how will the persistent trouble to our west and the larger West Asian (not 'Middle East') region evolve?
I used to do that. In fact a friend of mine became extremely rich (trading FX) based on my "predictions" (he made a ton on the election of Merkel). Too old now to get too deep.

My point is, while I respect your stand of not wanting to get involved too much, it does not help when you keep prescribing actions for India without any concrete reasoning.