India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

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.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 19 Jun 2016 15:30

Wah "silly" , Dhoti shivering" learned well from american masters. Suppress the debate by labeling.

Don't like what is being revealed about jsf; well no problem just lable David Axe as bad prejudice person finished.

This current hussein obama wants to open embassy in kashmir. All the previous 4 regimes admins were there saying attck Bharat. But no label dhoti shivering.

Yes its ok to shiver in amrikan jeans. Oh big bad cheen with fastest growing airforce navy. Shiver shiver come in US camp Now join its time Bharat and China join at
. Or big bad china will attack shiver in Levi jean...

Mihaylo
BRFite
Posts: 762
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 21:10

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Mihaylo » 19 Jun 2016 15:36

Dhananjay wrote:Wah "silly" , Dhoti shivering" learned well from american masters. Suppress the debate by labeling.

Don't like what is being revealed about jsf; well no problem just lable David Axe as bad prejudice person finished.

This current hussein obama wants to open embassy in kashmir. All the previous 4 regimes admins were there saying attck Bharat. But no label dhoti shivering.

Yes its ok to shiver in amrikan jeans. Oh big bad cheen with fastest growing airforce navy. Shiver shiver come in US camp Now join its time Bharat and China join at
. Or big bad china will attack shiver in Levi jean...


What is it that you are so desperately trying to say here?

-M

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2016 15:54

NRao wrote:Well, he says exactly what I said, except that he is saying it from an Indian PoV.

So, I just do not see the validity in his very first bolded statement: "offsets are applicable to FMS deals as well".

No, he doesn't. You said that, "No vendor is obligated to participate in an offset program IF the deal is FMS based.". That is simply not true.

GoI may not be able to enforce the offset obligations. That's different from "not being obligated".

BTW, there is only one view and that is GoI's defence purchase policies, stipulations and conditions.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nirav » 19 Jun 2016 15:56

None of the previous regimes actually attacked Bharat even when they had a chance as per your belief in the scenario.

What gives ?

In the BBC war gaming scenario you quoted, it mentioned a possible attack on Indian forces to safeguard their citizens in baki land.
This ridiculous option would be applied only in scenarios.
If shit were to hit the fan, most practical option would be evacuation of their citizenry from pakiland.

In 2016, we very well have the capability to attack US forces if they attack our forces.

Statecraft and long term strategic alignment can't be conducted on the basis of ridiculous proposals in some scenarios exercise..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2016 17:07

No, he doesn't. You said that, "No vendor is obligated to participate in an offset program IF the deal is FMS based.". That is simply not true.


So, what is true?

FMS has nothing to do with a vendor. Where is the obligation? A vendor does not have to anything beyond delivering the product to the US DoD. Vendor has absolutely nothing to do with the other gov.
Last edited by NRao on 19 Jun 2016 17:10, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2016 17:10

Just BTW, even the $4XX million support for the C-17 program was negotiated outside FMS.

So was the offset for C-17, outside FMS.


So, the US DoD (FMS) is responsible only for the deliveries.



The only common entity in both is the GoI. C-17 is between us DoD and GoI, while the offset and support between GoI and Boeing.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 19 Jun 2016 17:37

NRao wrote:
No, he doesn't. You said that, "No vendor is obligated to participate in an offset program IF the deal is FMS based.". That is simply not true.


So, what is true?

FMS has nothing to do with a vendor. Where is the obligation? A vendor does not have to anything beyond delivering the product to the US DoD. Vendor has absolutely nothing to do with the other gov.

I have stated the truth. I would be glad to be proved otherwise.

The article I posted by a Senior Fellow at CLAWS clearly states (and I am repeating), "A buyer country has to negotiate a separate offset agreement directly with the prime contractor. Implementation of such an offset agreement remains a matter between the buyer country and the contractor, while the US government accepts no responsibility for its enforcement."

Janes reported the following, for example:
Some of these arrangements support offset obligations linked to Boeing's previous sales to India, which include P-8I long-range maritime patrol aircraft and C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft.


Offset programme is not peculiar to India. Almost all countries follow this practice.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby UlanBatori » 19 Jun 2016 18:11

What is the difference between 'offset' and 'backsheesh' pls?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17070
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby NRao » 19 Jun 2016 22:43

SSridhar wrote:I have stated the truth. I would be glad to be proved otherwise.


I guess we are not on the same page. Have idea what "proved otherwise" is.

The article I posted by a Senior Fellow at CLAWS clearly states (and I am repeating), "A buyer country has to negotiate a separate offset agreement directly with the prime contractor. Implementation of such an offset agreement remains a matter between the buyer country and the contractor, while the US government accepts no responsibility for its enforcement."


Yup. That is the offset deal between the GoI and Boeing. That is the way it is supposed to be.

Nothing to do with the FMA based C-17 deal (which is between the GoI and GOTUS).

Janes reported the following, for example:
Some of these arrangements support offset obligations linked to Boeing's previous sales to India, which include P-8I long-range maritime patrol aircraft and C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft.



OK. The article makes no mention of "FMS". So, it is no diff than the previous quote.

I have nothing against any of these. They are all in line with the norm.

Offset programme is not peculiar to India. Almost all countries follow this practice.


That statement is true. But WRT C-17s - in particular - it is separate than the purchase, linked only at the Indian end, not at the US end.

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Suresh S » 20 Jun 2016 06:08

India and Mr.Modi have to learn that we must stand on our own feet and require no assistance from the US or anyone to claim our rightful place in the comity of nations. India's strength in anbtiquity,philosophy,religion,science,human resources military and economic power will finds its own level,wher eother nations will look towards us for leadership as they did during the heyday of NAM. Hanging onto Uncle Sam's coattails only demeans India and its leadership.

Agree with philip. That rightful place is at the head of the table because of it,s culture.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jun 2016 07:01

Mihaylo wrote:
Dhananjay wrote:Wah "silly" , Dhoti shivering" learned well from american masters. Suppress the debate by labeling.

Don't like what is being revealed about jsf; well no problem just lable David Axe as bad prejudice person finished.

This current hussein obama wants to open embassy in kashmir. All the previous 4 regimes admins were there saying attck Bharat. But no label dhoti shivering.

Yes its ok to shiver in amrikan jeans. Oh big bad cheen with fastest growing airforce navy. Shiver shiver come in US camp Now join its time Bharat and China join at
. Or big bad china will attack shiver in Levi jean...


What is it that you are so desperately trying to say here?

-M


That I have a right to post like this:

Dhananjay wrote:
nirav wrote:@ Trade : Id be real glad if US could transfer some of the huge trade deficits from China to India. Current trade value isnt at its full potential.

For the moment its the US trade volume with China which is fueling PLA modernization.
If US engages with [b]that
kind of trade with India,
[/b] we'll happily "Buy American" and sign soup treaties too .. :mrgreen:


Never ever gonna happen, been going through this thread and "understand US" thread for last 2 months to find out core understanding of BRF, here is what I picked up in summarizing the whole situation:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1699569#p1700049

Ramana wrote:

Goals and Objectives of the three players:

US wants to be the pre-eminent power for ever and ever. Inherit the mantle of British Empire for at least next five hundred years-Churchill goal thwarted by WWII.

China wants to dislodge the US and has world beating ambition.

India wants economic prosperity and security for its citizens. No world beating ambition.

Constraints:

US:
- US is economically tied to China while being the predominant military, political and economic power.
- Because of its economic dependence, US doesn't want India to be a real threat to China.
-The US financial meltdown has led to severe erosion of economic power. The recovery is partial and only in the banking sector with massive infusion of Federal debt. China holds quite a large amount of that debt.
-Politically US is fractured with lack of clarity in foreign affairs from Eastern Europe to North Africa to West Asia and Af-Pak.
-US does not trust India and seeks to impose technological constraints perpetually. The constraint is lifted only if India already develops the technology to kill local initiative.
- US has a divided house with President and Congress of different parties. The Senate could also slip away in 2014 elections. This is due to the stasis at Main Street level while Wall Street is a roaring success. So six years of lost progress for Main Street drives the change.
- Obama -2 is like UPA-2 to put it in simple terms. Every aspect is like MMS's hand running the US.

China:
- Chinese economy is distorted with export oriented capacity.
- Chinese local consumption is slow to build up
- China military is modernizing at slow pace and not at same rate as political and economy are moving.
-Sinkiang- Uighur are becoming a problem with Islamic fundamentalism driving nationalist ambitions.
-Political reforms are needed to transform China from Communist ideology to reflect reality. Tian Mein Square protests and crackdown were a bow-shot.


India:
- Indian economy and society is just recovering from ten years of stasis with UPA inaction in every sphere of activity.
- Indian military modernization has akin a ten year checked out system.
- Indian media and opinion makers are not in sync with public mood and political reality. They are still acting as UPA is still a force to reckon with.
-Wiki and Snowden have shown the deep penetration of the political and media systems in India.
-India needs tot create new friends at least less enemies in the neighborhood and then the outer ring.
- Indian economy needs high technology in manufacturing machines, cyber IT and ports infrastructure. All this needs capital and technology inputs.

We can think of solutions later to achieve the goals.
----BTW fromm CUB:
------------------------------------------

Devesh wrote:

one astute point by Ramana ji above is that US doesn't want any serious threats to China because of their heavy investments there.

this is undoubtedly true. even tech/logistics businesses in the $100-$500 mil. range now have serious investments in PRC. also, per the volume/revenues of their offices in China, American Business considers China to be the golden-egg-laying-goose of the future.
-------------------------------------------------

CRamS questioned:

DeveshJi, you and RamanaGaru articulate the PRC US symbiotic relationship well, but what puzzles me is the public demonization of PRC by US. And make no mistake, this has a visible effect on aam junta, they do consider PRC as a "threat". What is Uncle's game here? Why the public brouhaha to the extent that his people are brainwashed into thinking PRC is enemy when in fact PRC is a bed mate?

--------------------------
Ramana answered:
How long have you been in US! The maxim is "go by what they do than by what they say!"

And read books on Nixon where he clearly sates why he opened up to China. Essentially Vietnam bankrupted the US economically (they did not rise taxes to fund the war), morally as it was the worng war, and socially as people lost trust in leaders. So he had to come to terms with FSU and split the PRC away from FSU. he offered them a way ot of the poverty by creating an opening which Mao did not take but Deng did after facing the Tien An Mein Square moment of truth. They literally feared a Caucescu moment for the leaders.

Despite all the hype, US was and is playing a balance of power strategy and not the strategy of a great power. A great power will do what it wants to and not say one thing and do another thing. Read Paul Kennedy to get more gnan.


US public needs an enemy to be motivated or else they will take it easy.


Its a Dar ul Harb economy.

even in niche industrial tech (non-high volume) companies, orders directly from top management are that "new expansion" and "emerging markets" is essentially about PRC. and more often that not, we are told openly not to 'divert' resources that go into expansion-related activities in PRC.

make absolutely no mistake about it: PRC has positioned itself very well in the American commercial-instinct-driven value hierarchy.
---------------------------

Singha wrote :

Despite India making no effort to get better and more tanks, TSP is being given 1000s of Hellfires and tows as a xbm

---------------------------------------------

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6169&start=440#p1417266

Philip wrote:
We will have drone strikes planned against us and the US and Pak might even gang up in a joint op to liberate Kashmir.

Rememebr,U heard it from moi first!

svinayak wrote :
Apart from everything else this part may be true. They had a plan for joint invasion which was floating in the internet in the early 90s. This was a cold war plan and they could revive it
-----------------------------------



:cry:

There is another post by Shri Svinayak on Karl Indurfurth article, where he said in the even of Bharat-pak war US will fight on the side of pakistan or help it, while in long term the strategy is to sell Bharat more US arms so US can sanction/control Bharat at will.

I had save that post in archive but now I can't find it, requested shri svinayak but he is not responding. What to do... but that post would have completed the picture.



Austin wrote:Washington denies India access to FBI's terrorist-related investigation information

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/inte ... 95394.html


Found it finally:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6172&p=1190532&hilit=bbc#p1190532

arun wrote:
X posted from the India-US Strategic News and Discussions thread.

Josy Joseph writing in TOI reveals that declassified Indian documents shown that US hostility to India during the 1971 war with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was more intense than previously disclosed:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 625404.cms


svinayak wrote:
Need to understand this more and discuss this more.
Pakistan behavior is monitored and also its foreign policy is under the scanner of US policymakers and US military establishment(Ayub Khan). That is one of the reason the Pak ruling elite turns to its military very often.

The wars waged by Pakistan (atleast 65 , possible 48, likely 99) was war gamed by US military and they do some scenario planning.

If the Pakistan behavior goes out of hand or they overstretch and fumble during war , the US establishment will take the risk to protect them by attacking India or reducing the war making abilities of India (spare shortage)

Karl Indufurth State dept official even made a statement to the effect in 2001 that US will back Pakistan during a war with India.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_poin ... 511473.stm


The team for scenarios was from reagen, older bush, clinton admins and how they unanimously decide to attack only Bharat.

Not a single time there is a mention of attacking porkis. :evil:

How inderfurth gives reason that they have to attack Bharat because of lives of 20,000 amrikans are endangered, that too when clearly porkis are the instigaters.

These people are being accommodated for lemoa. If Bharat once refused after signing they'll start sanctioning arm twisting like anything.

-------------------------

And they can be rebutted, but not by just throwing lables around like 'desperate', 'd... shivering' , 'silly'.

Because then in return when lables are thrown there would be flame war and discussion would get suppressed or sidelined.

Maybe that's what is the manshaa of certain posters.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jun 2016 09:09

NRao wrote:I guess we are not on the same page.

You bet. I have nothing more to add to the FMS debate.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Austin » 20 Jun 2016 12:19

Defence logistics pact with US hits ‘implementation’ hurdles

New Delhi, June 15:

After the euphoria over India and the US “finalising” a defence logistics pact during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit, the US has expressed “concerns” over how the agreement will be implemented and operationalised.

The defence logistics pact – Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) – was the highlight of Modi’s visit to Washington earlier this month.

“The US government has raised concerns over the final implementation of the agreement. This is because to fully operationalise the LEMOA, both the governments would need to link it with transfer of technology,” a top official involved in the process told BusinessLine.

The official said unless the entire process of linking mutual military missions are properly linked to technology sharing, the Union Cabinet will not be able to grant its nod to implement the pact fully.

The mutual military missions entail humanitarian assistance, disaster relief missions, counter piracy missions and maritime domain awareness missions.

According to sources, both India and the US have relaxed some of the stringent provisions of the pact, which, in American defence parlance, is known as the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA).

Apparently, in the final text, some changes have been made pertaining to language for “political reasons”, to make it clear that India will not be “coaxed” into supporting the US army during its military campaigns, and that such a pact will be utilised only during peace-time situation, the official added.

In April, the pact was agreed in-principle by both the governments during the visit of US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter to India. However, there were some hurdles at that time related to payments for using each other’s military supplies and fuel and how the taxes will be calculated, including on the exchange of military support.

Interests of both

“It is not clear that all levels of the Indian government understand that this linkage, connecting technology to military capabilities, are in the interest of both countries.

“It is a pre-requisite to the most advanced defence technology cooperation with the US,” said Ben Schwartz, Director (Aerospace and Defence), US-India Business Council.

Besides, the Modi government has made it clear the pact will be applicable to all three services – Army, Navy and Air Force. The US had demanded clarification on this as well.

“This agreement has been sought for over a decade and by finalising the text, the Modi government has demonstrated its willingness to risk short-term domestic political pressure, including by those who misconstrue the agreement as a concession that weakens Indian sovereignty, in order to reap longer term benefits of defence cooperation with the US,” Schwartz added.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jun 2016 12:26

The above is an excellent news. I imagine that GoI is learning the realpolitik ropes from the Master himself and is practising it on him!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21310
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Philip » 20 Jun 2016 13:21

The US fondly imagines that it will be "easy come ,easy go",where their ships and aircraft can sail into any port or fly into any airbase at will,with embedded uniformed Yanqui tribesmen,"minding their stores", unapproachable, uninspectable and unimaginable by any Indian! There is a minefield of practical difficulties as storage of US weaponry, etc. on Indian soil which will make us extra vulnerable to the dragon as well as tying up such "deposits" in controversy.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24734
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 20 Jun 2016 13:35

Philip wrote:The US fondly imagines that it will be "easy come ,easy go",where their ships and aircraft can sail into any port or fly into any airbase at will,with embedded uniformed Yanqui tribesmen,"minding their stores", unapproachable, uninspectable and unimaginable by any Indian! There is a minefield of practical difficulties as storage of US weaponry, etc. on Indian soil which will make us extra vulnerable to the dragon as well as tying up such "deposits" in controversy.


There will also be a massive paki + cheeni covert campaign to recruit "assets" in the Indian Forces. Many attempts may well fail but some will surely succeed.

This is a clear and present danger for us all.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nirav » 20 Jun 2016 13:36

Dhananjay wrote:

And they can be rebutted, but not by just throwing lables around like 'desperate', 'd... shivering' , 'silly'.

Because then in return when lables are thrown there would be flame war and discussion would get suppressed or sidelined.

Maybe that's what is the manshaa of certain posters.


What exactly are you trying to say ?

You keep bringing up a 2001 scenario by one Karl Inderfurth and are going on and on about it.
Hes retired and is way past his prime.

On one hand US is negotiating Lemoa and other soup treaties with India and you still are stuck 15 years back that they will "attack us".

Certainly some things must have changed in 15 years now ? Dont you think ?
They sailed the seventh fleet in '71, yet did nothing.

There is a vast difference between Indo US relations of 1971 and 2016. Yet you still keep repeating Karl Inderfurth ad nauseam as if hes the one whos gonna make US "attack" India. :roll:

This is why ive termed it silly and shivering.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jun 2016 15:03

You are being a talwachaatu of US continuously. In 71' Soviet sub pinged and forced them to turn away.

Why you master of talwachaatugiri keep on omitting hussein obama's kashmir comments, and this nuke comments hashing Bharat with porkis:

Barack Obama’s advice to India and Pakistan to cut back their stores of nuclear arsenals has raised some hackles in New Delhi.

Two days after Mr. Obama mentioned India’s nuclear program with Pakistan’s in the same breath as he urged both countries to stop moving in the “wrong direction,” India took exception.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/04/05/obamas-nuclear-remarks-upset-india/

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2364-indian-navy-news-and-discussion/page__st__40

US manageed to spoof Indian ship communication channel during Op Parakram, such that during the peak of Indian Military manuvere the ships that were on strict radio silance and guarding assigned flanks on western Arabian seas un-expectedly sailed home and only when they reached Mumbai, IN discovered they were spoofed with a messages that teh IN Command never sent. That was when IN rarely used a US equipment (that too on peripheral systems), what to speak of Command & Control nodes or sensor nodes, or AESA that dowes both.

This is to the extent amrika went to save its munna and sabotage Bharat.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nirav » 20 Jun 2016 15:56

you seem to follow "you are either with us or against us" ..

It doesnt really work that way in real politilk.

forget the US, we deal and engage even with the Pakis,Chinese both of whom have actually waged war against India.

What exactly is it that you are trying to say ?
Disengage with US and declare it enemy ? ( because some Inderfurth spoke about "attacking India")

This is getting ridiculous by the minute !

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jun 2016 16:21

There is not a single post by me which uses disengage OR synonymous with it. Just I am presenting the boundaries from US side, upto where it can go or won't.

Show where I said disengage !

But I can see you're just in the business of taunting and posting few liner posts using epithets, as one can see from aviation thread too, nothing of an effort study, just taunt ho humm that's all.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nirav » 20 Jun 2016 16:51

Dhananjay wrote:There is not a single post by me which uses disengage OR synonymous with it. Just I am presenting the boundaries from US side, upto where it can go or won't.

Show where I said disengage !

But I can see you're just in the business of taunting and posting few liner posts using epithets, as one can see from aviation thread too, nothing of an effort study, just taunt ho humm that's all.


Im afraid you are saying a LOT without saying anything on topic.

From EMALs to trade, you just keep up US bashing and mentioning Karl Inderfurth article over and over ..
You btw have gone on a name calling spree too. Why then get riled up ?

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 20 Jun 2016 17:02

nirav wrote:You btw have gone on a name calling spree too. Why then get riled up ?


Only now in last couple of posts, congrats you finally managed to drag me in gutter to your level. Time to get out this and start ignoring you !!!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 20 Jun 2016 19:00

nirav & Dhananjay, please lay off from each other.

* Admin *

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2016 22:09

Philip wrote:The US fondly imagines that it will be "easy come ,easy go",where their ships and aircraft can sail into any port or fly into any airbase at will,with embedded uniformed Yanqui tribesmen,"minding their stores", unapproachable, uninspectable and unimaginable by any Indian! There is a minefield of practical difficulties as storage of US weaponry, etc. on Indian soil which will make us extra vulnerable to the dragon as well as tying up such "deposits" in controversy.


What is being sought is deployment of undersee boats in Pashchim Dadhi. Gives coverage of dlagon from standoff distances.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby member_29172 » 20 Jun 2016 22:23

-Edited-
Last edited by ramana on 20 Jun 2016 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby UlanBatori » 21 Jun 2016 05:04

Is the presence of boomers in lakshadweep samudram really new? Don't they base out of DG? I bet there was heavy presence in 2001-2003 at least of attack subs if not boomers when the carriers were standing off Karachi and DG based bombers were plastering Pakis.

I would expect boomers to be cruising in the general vicinity, within convenient range for making friendly deliveries to sites in Tibet as well as Gobi, plus all cities in Cheen. Think about it - what else are the boomers good for these days? To scare Sierra Leone?

So I don't see why get undies in a knot now. OTOH, with whatever deals, India should send subs on friendly vijits to Norfolk and Seattle and King's Bay and San Diego, as well as to Vladivostok and Odessa and Mariupol and Patagonia. Why not?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24734
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 21 Jun 2016 09:53

Modi scored sensational success in US. But then he suddenly turned to Russia. What's up?


Modi scored sensational success in US. But then he suddenly turned to Russia. What's up?


By T J S George Published: 19th June 2016




Narendra Modi’s triumphalist performance at the US Congress set off the usual fan frenzy in India. (This organised brouhaha over every Modi visit abroad is losing its sheen through repetition.) The hype, however, should not prevent us from recognising the political importance the Prime Minister’s fourth visit to the US achieved. For the first time, India appeared to fall into America’s military-industrial web. This has been a long-cherished ambition of not only Washington but also influential lobbies in India’s political, administrative and intellectual circles. Modi seemed to follow their script. But immediately thereafter, he took steps that pointed to possible second thoughts about what he had achieved in America.

Indians promoting American interests in India had their first victory at the policy level during the early phase of Indira Gandhi’s prime ministership. This was ironic because Indira was to build her strength on the slogan of socialism and Nixon-Kissinger’s America was to use dirty words to describe her. But in the 1960s, her most trusted Cabinet colleagues were Food Minister C Subramaniam and Planning Minister Asoka Mehta. They were also America’s most trusted friends in India. They were backed by a good chunk of our senior civil servants who looked up to the World Bank-IMF as paragons of international virtue.

Then came, in the 1990s, the ultimate strategic guru, K Subrahmanyam. A former civil servant and journalist, Subrahmanyam became the architect of India’s nuclear doctrine and the India-US civil nuclear energy agreement. His position was that India should have strategic partnership with the US in order to strengthen Indian economy and to compete with China technologically and militarily. Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh paid heed to his advice, but without crossing what had come to be known as India’s independent line.

There must have been developments in Delhi, unbeknown to the general public, that brought about a subtle departure from the Vajpayee-Manmohan line. In 2013, the leading American think tank, Brooklyn Institute, opened a branch in New Delhi to give “recommendations to Indian policy makers”. This year, the other leading American think tank, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, also opened a branch in Delhi to “collaborate with decision makers in (Indian) government, business and civil society”. Two powerful American establishments to help decision-making in India?

We can now see the larger picture into which the Modi visit fitted. It could not have been a coincidence that US senators who were critical of Modi before supported him now as they hailed the “Modi doctrine” and moved to pass a special Global Partnership With India Act. The joint statement from the White House declared that India had been upgraded into a “major defence partner”. This meant, as experts pointed out, that India would be qualified to buy sophisticated modern weaponry from the US. In other words, India’s elevation meant better prospects for America’s weapons sales. The significant advantages America gained must be the reason why major US newspapers, which had paid scant attention to Modi’s earlier visits, now played up the importance of America’s closeness to India.

But Modi, there is ground to believe, has become a savvy player in international relations. As soon as he left the shores of America, he must have realised that becoming America’s strategic partner essentially meant becoming part of America’s strategic move to contain China. To be sure, China has accelerated building up Pakistan, including its nuclear capability, to contain India. Should India respond by ganging up with the US against China, or by trying to tell

China that other choices are available?

The question must have occurred to Modi, for the first thing he did on getting back home was to phone, of all people, Vladimir Putin. Russia has had a long history of trusting relations with India, which included transfer of military technology. This had come under strain on account of Manmohan Singh’s overtures to America. At the same time, US-NATO hostility has forced Russia to forge extremely close relations with China. This makes Moscow the best possible interlocutor between India and China.

We must hope that Modi saw the un-wisdom of directly antagonising China. It would be in China’s interests, too, to help improve relations with India. Modi must have calculated that the Shangai Cooperation Council’s meeting in Tashkent next week is an opportunity not to be missed. India is to become a full-fledged member of the SCC at this meeting, opening new avenues for cooperation and understanding. Tashkent, more than Washington, will decide the way things move—for Asia and for Narendra Modi.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Austin » 21 Jun 2016 09:54

American patience is stretched

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 21st June 16
Both Indian and American media gushed over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech to the United States Congress last fortnight. There was potent symbolism in his invocation of American soldiers who had fought and died abroad “to protect the torch of liberty”, just as Indian soldiers had “fallen in distant battlefields for the same ideals”. There was also a powerful message in Mr Modi’s statement that “our relationship has overcome the hesitations of history” and that America is “an indispensable partner.” He even sent out a message to Beijing by declaring that “In Asia, the absence of an agreed security architecture creates uncertainty” and that “A strong US-India partnership can anchor peace and stability from Asia to Africa, and from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific.” But words, even those of Mr Modi, are only a limited substitute for action.

A few days later, one of the people who had listened to Mr Modi’s speech, displayed his impatience by declining to back an India-specific amendment, the “Advancing US-India Defense Cooperation Act”, which requires the American president to “formalize India’s status as a major partner of the United States.” Introduced by senate heavyweights that included Senator John McCain and the co-chairs of the India Caucus, Mark Warner and John Cornyn, this amendment is a companion to an almost identical document, entitled “US India Defense Technology and Partnership Act”, that the House of Representatives, the lower house of Congress, had already passed. The plan was to tag this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), to save the India clause from the fate of most bills introduced in the bitterly divided US Congress --- which is to stall amidst acrimony, and eventually fade away into oblivion.

However, the irate Senator Bob Corker, who chairs the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, was not willing to let the bill go through Senate. Corker is amongst a growing number of American Congressmen who believes New Delhi continues to spurn Washington’s outreach to India since 2005. These legislators ask: “What has India done so far in response to the US?” Corker also happens to be an active campaigner for ending “modern day slavery”, or the trafficking and exploitation of people from places like Nepal for exploitation as sex workers or domestic servants --- in which India does not look good. So Corker made it clear that on the India amendment to the NDAA, which had a substantial foreign relations component, he would not waive his jurisdiction as the Foreign Relations Committee chief, even though the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee chief had done so. As it turned out, Corker’s opposition was not needed to scuttle the India amendment. Other Senate leaders decided, at a particular stage of discussion, that no more amendments would be passed. So, along with about a hundred other amendments, the India amendment too was set aside. The Indian media, predictably, went to town again. Some sections saw this as a snub to Modi, while anti-US sections tut-tutted about how foolish it was to trust the Americans.

The India amendment will be discussed further and may yet be passed. However, we would be unwise to ignore the building resentment in the US Congress amongst legislators who believe India is freeriding on the defence partnership. New Delhi seems to assume that America’s outstretched hand to India will remain outstretched forever, while we debate at leisure about whether Uncle Sam deserves our trust and friendship.

To be sure, this Indian insensitivity is not just directed at America. Even as New Delhi keeps Washington dangling, Indian diplomats and bureaucrats deal just as disdainfully with Moscow, Paris, London and other capitals. Ironically sensitivity and consideration seems reserved for India’s adversaries, with Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj explaining carefully on Sunday that Beijing was not really opposing India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG); it is only linking India’s NSG membership with that of Pakistan because of its concern for procedure and due process.

Noting such blows to Indian interests, and China’s increasingly undisguised support for Pakistan, Washington wonders what it will take for New Delhi to take a tougher stance against Beijing. US policymakers acknowledge preliminary signs of a stronger Indian policy. A Pentagon official cites Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s “forward leaning” statement (code for critical of China) on the Asia-Pacific at the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM+). This column took note last fortnight of Mr Parrikar’s relatively forthright comments at the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last month. Mr Modi’s speech to US Congress also contained statements implicitly critical of China that would have been welcomed in Washington. But this is too little, too late, and patience is running out in Washington. US legislators and policymakers are watching closely for New Delhi’s reaction to the impending verdict of a UN arbitration court on the maritime dispute in the South China Sea between the Philippines and China. The UN court is widely expected to rule in favour of Manila, providing an opportunity for New Delhi --- which normally supports UN bodies --- to speak out against Beijing. China has claimed that sixty countries, including India, supports Beijing’s position that the UN body has no jurisdiction over a bilateral dispute. Only eight of those countries --- which include Vanatu, Togo and Lesotho --- have confirmed supporting the Chinese position. Delhi is one of the countries that has neither confirmed, nor denied, Beijing’s assertion on its behalf.

Also galling to Washington is India’s continued foot-shuffling on signing the three “foundational agreements” for defence cooperation --- a Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) for easy accounting of cross-servicing of defence units; the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) for safeguarding cutting edge American-developed communications equipment and a Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for exchanging geospatial (or mapping) data. After years on the back burner, this has come alive again, and Mr Modi undertook during his visit to Washington to sign an LSA. To detoxify the agreement, which many had unfairly criticized as an infringement of India’s sovereignty, Washington proposed it be called a Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). While this will now be signed, BECA should follow, since it contains little that New Delhi can object to, while providing Indian forces access to American maps and data --- which proved extremely useful when the two countries’ militaries conducted relief operations together in Nepal after a massive earthquake. That leaves CISMOA, which is a major roadblock to realizing the operational potential of valuable defence platforms --- like the C-130J Super Hercules special forces transporter; and the P-8I Poseidon maritime mission aircraft --- that India has already paid billions of dollars for. True, CISMOA entails intrusive provisions, such as the stationing of US inspectors alongside CISMOA-covered equipment; and that too at Indian expense. However, if New Delhi and the Indian military are comfortable with stationing US military equipment, distrusting an American inspector amounts to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Mr Modi declared before the US Congress:, “the constraints of the past are behind us… and the foundations of the future are firmly in place”. It is time New Delhi focused on the present as well.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24261
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jun 2016 14:52

From such articles as the above by Ajai Shukla, we can understand who exactly are America's friends at India's cost in the media community.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4749
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 21 Jun 2016 15:01

Amazing shukla should be asking what single step US has taken? Have they changed a single law guarenteeing they they won't sanction Bharat like they did so many times before? Still Bharat has purchased so many weapons from them that US left Russia behind as top exporter to Bharat.

With a single sanction they can turn these weapons in dead weight destroying out billions of dollars investment. It is Bharat upto now doing all the steps and being flexible on every count.

US is like Sursa ka muh no matter how much you put in they just aren't fulfilled. Hope NaMo govt. does a Hanuman thing with them and get us out of this trap.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nirav » 21 Jun 2016 15:50

SSridhar wrote:From such articles as the above by Ajai Shukla, we can understand who exactly are America's friends at India's cost in the media community.


While Im in favour of deeper engagement with the US im particularly happy that the govt is taking its time negotiating and finalising agreements.

Think one could even give credit to MMS govt. They were the most expected to turn belly up, yet resisted the US to sign the agreements as is ..

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Suresh S » 21 Jun 2016 18:02

Sridhar it is my firm belief having studied Indian history that Indian state must have a very robust internal and external security apparatus especially internal to quash like roaches any traitors that exists( and by god do we have them in numbers!). I have absolutely zero tolerance for so called Indians who are willing to sell their soul to the devil(intentionally or by stupidity) for a few dollars

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4079
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Lilo » 22 Jun 2016 08:46

Indian-origin hedge fund manager commits suicide
Press Trust of India | New York Jun 22, 2016 09:07 AM IST

A 44-year old Indian-origin hedge fund portfolio manager, who was charged last week with insider trading, has committed suicide in his apartment here.

Sanjay Valvani, had faced securities fraud and wire fraud charges after he had used confidential information obtained from a former official at the Food and Drug Administration to trade in the securities of two pharmaceutical companies and earned about USD 25 million in trading profits.
Advertisement

A New York Police Department spokesperson confirmed to PTI that Valvani had committed suicide.

The spokesperson said Valvani left "a note" and had a "slash wound" to his neck and wrist. A knife was found by the body.

The police had got a 911 call from Valvani's wife at about 6 pm on Monday and he was pronounced dead by medical personal at 6:30 pm.

The police spokesperson said Valvani's body was on the floor of the bedroom in his Brooklyn home and by the time the medical team reached the scene he was dead.

Valvani's attorneys Barry Berke and Eric Tirschwell termed his death as a "horrible tragedy that is difficult to comprehend."

They said hewas a "loving father, husband, son and brother and committed friend, colleague and mentor."

"We hope for the sake of his family and his memory that it will not be forgotten that the charges against him were only unproven accusations and he had always maintained his innocence," they said in a statement.

US Attorney Preet Bharara's office{Massa's phaltu kutta at it again}, which had brought the charges on June 15, declined to comment on the development.

Former portfolio manager Stefan Lumiere was also charged along with Valvani in Manhattan federal court.

A political intelligence consultant and former senior official at the Food and Drug Administration Gordon Johnston and former hedge fund portfolio manager Christopher Plaford had pled guilty and were cooperating with the government.{To help the WASPs escape its the brown skinned that are hoisted on the pikes}

The charges had alleged that between 2005 through January 2011, Valvani unlawfully obtained from Johnston highly confidential and material nonpublic information with the FDA about the agency's approval of pending generic drug applications.

Valvani was also charged with passing certain highly confidential and material nonpublic information to Plaford, who also executed trades based on the information.
Valvani was the latest Indian-origin hedge fund manager to be charged with insider trading


Now its common knowledge that insider trading in big money movers is as ubiquitous as STDs in p.orn industry , so when the Indian origin individuals are repeatedly victimized the intent is more to teach the uppity upstarts deferential manners by the WASP big sharks.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby JE Menon » 22 Jun 2016 08:50

Sting?

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6894
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby habal » 22 Jun 2016 10:47

Austin wrote:American patience is stretched

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 21st June 16


need to check how far it can stretch, and enjoy when it breaks. :rotfl:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9969
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jun 2016 16:39

The US also need to understand India is not a banana republic. If some US senator wants to make rubbish statements on slavery in India, we can also make long comments on how blacks are betting gunned down like dogs in US streets day after day.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 22 Jun 2016 18:56

Not defending Shukla but we need to hear what Americans are thinking.
Essentially they want some favors in return which is more than required since GOI essentially bailed out the C17 line and others.
So they need to look within themselves and be honest they want strategic relations or mercantile relations?

Ombaba claims he wants former but two bit Senators, who are on the take from industry, want mercantile relations.

vivek.rao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3775
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby vivek.rao » 22 Jun 2016 20:03

Ajai Shukla will spew any nonsense that helps the arms broker business of his relatives. We need to really hear info from US

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ShauryaT » 23 Jun 2016 14:52

ramana wrote:
JE Menon wrote:Those who click on Karnad's site will find he has designated himself as "India's foremost conservative strategist".



He is. I suggested to him that he is a maximalist.
From an MEA lens, certainly that tag is appropriate. From a sense of what a power like India ought to do or have done, he seems very practical. His controversial stances or seeming impracticality seems so, only due to the lack of "will" to power of the Indian establishment. This lack of will manifests itself in under investment in military and actions on foreign policy underpinned by hard power that furthers Indian interests. The sustained under investment in military hard power is well documented, what is less well known is the Indian MEA is severely under staffed for the size of power India is. You all are well familiar with the litany of missed opportunities due to this under investment and lack of action.

But I agree with JE Menon, What is Karnad trying to "conserve" with that tag line, if anything, he is a disruptionist to MEA stratagems.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Cosmo_R » 23 Jun 2016 15:17

ramana wrote:Not defending Shukla but we need to hear what Americans are thinking.
Essentially they want some favors in return which is more than required since GOI essentially bailed out the C17 line and others.
So they need to look within themselves and be honest they want strategic relations or mercantile relations?

Ombaba claims he wants former but two bit Senators, who are on the take from industry, want mercantile relations.


They want India to be the 'China Card' that PRC was in the 1970s-1990s relative to the FSU. I'm not sure of the term 'mercantile' (classic definition or merely trade?) but everyone including the Indian side wants to quintuple India-US trade to $500bn and they certainly have made it clear they want strategic relations since they went out their way to create something that never existed before: Major Defence Partner.

Our problem is that we always want to be Chief not Indian, Batman rather than Robin, the Lone Ranger vs Tonto or Superman vs Jimmy Olsen. They want us because size matters in selecting a sidekick but sidekicks toe the line: Gee Barack! Awesome!

We feel we are big enough but lack the superpowers. US is willing to make us one (Philip Zelikow during GW's time) but don't want to repeat the China Frankenstein mistake.

We may have done a favor by buying C17s, but now we cannot get enough of them.

Way for India to manage the 800 pound gorilla? A huge trade relationship (mutually beneficial) plus deep relationships with their MIC. You got that and you've got 635 Hill's angels on your side. Leverage Israel and you sealed the deal.

JMT


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AshishA, kvraghav and 73 guests