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.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7031
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 19 Apr 2016 12:47

Viv_S, is that from The Economist?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 19 Apr 2016 12:55


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

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

Postby RajeshA » 19 Apr 2016 13:18

Published on Apr 18, 2016
By Michael Isikoff
Top Trump aide lobbied for Pakistani spy front: Yahoo News

For more than five years, Donald Trump’s new top campaign aide, Paul Manafort, lobbied for a Washington-based group that Justice Department prosecutors have charged operated as a front for Pakistan’s intelligence service, according to court and lobbying records reviewed by Yahoo News.

Manafort’s work in the 1990s as a registered lobbyist for the Kashmiri American Council was only one part of a wide-ranging portfolio that, over several decades, included a gallery of controversial foreign clients ranging from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and Zaire’s brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to an Angolan rebel leader accused by human rights groups of torture. His role as an adviser to Ukraine’s then prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, prompted concerns within the Bush White House that he was undermining U.S. foreign policy. It was considered so politically toxic in 2008 that presidential candidate John McCain nixed plans for Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention — a move that caused a rupture between Manafort and his then business partner, Rick Davis, who at the time was McCain’s campaign manager.

Manafort’s work for the Kashmiri group has so far not gotten any media attention.

But it could fuel more questions about his years of lobbying for questionable foreign interests before Manafort, 67, assumed his new position as chief delegate counter and strategist for a presidential candidate who repeatedly decries the influence of Washington lobbyists and denounces the manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign governments.

Court records show that Manafort’s Kashmiri lobbying contract came on the FBI’s radar screen during a lengthy counterterrorism investigation that culminated in 2011 with the arrest of the Kashmiri council’s director, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, on charges that he ran the group on behalf of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, as part of a scheme to secretly influence U.S. policy toward the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Image

Paul Manafort, convention manager for the Trump campaign, on “Meet the Press,” April 10.

The Kashmiri American Council was a “scam” that amounted to a “false flag operation that Mr. Fai was operating on behalf of the ISI,” Gordon D. Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, said in March 2012 at Fai’s sentencing hearing in federal court. While posing as a U.S.-based nonprofit funded by American donors sympathetic to the plight of Kashmiris, it was actually bankrolled by the ISI in order to deflect public attention “away from the involvement of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere,” Kromberg said. Fai, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax fraud charges, was then sentenced to two years in federal prison.

Lobbying records filed with the secretary of the Senate show that Manafort’s lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, was paid $700,000 by the Kashmiri American Council between 1990 and 1995. This was among more than $4 million that federal prosecutors alleged came from the ISI; Fai collected the money over 20 years from “straw” American donors who were being reimbursed from secret accounts in Pakistan. (The funds were in some cases delivered to Fai in brown paper bags stuffed with cash — and then the donors reimbursed with wire transfers from ISI operatives, according to an FBI affidavit.)


I've tweeted to Donald Trump and would request others to retweet.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

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

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Apr 2016 13:29

We seem to forget that this LSA agreement also gives us access to US bases too. We need access to these bases in Western Pacific so that IN and possibly IAF can also operate in Western Pacific. We need these bases in conjunction with bases in Vietnam, Japan and Russia. Now in a conflict with PRC Russia can be expected to stay neutral. It will be Japan, Vietnam and USA who can be expected to give access to these assets.

Moreover our agreement clearly states that we will not be providing bases in case action is taken against a Friendly nation. So us getting pulled into something we do not want is also clearly mentioned.

Dont look at this agreement with USA only in terms of today. Think of it as what we will need by 2020 and 2025. This agreement will be foundation stone for our navy to operate in two Oceans, The Indian as well as the Pacific. It is good that this agreement got signed now. It is planning for the future.

Next step joint patrols.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

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

Postby Christopher Sidor » 19 Apr 2016 13:31

^^^^
Again to reiterate joint patrols in Western Pacific, SCS, Yellow sea, etc. Not in Arabian Sea or in the Persian Gulf or the Red sea.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13440
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 19 Apr 2016 14:53

Why not South Indian Ocean, South Atlantic and South Pacific? By now, much of Antarctica has been taken over by Pakistan / ISI, I assume.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby arshyam » 19 Apr 2016 19:43

Christopher Sidor wrote:We need access to these bases in Western Pacific so that IN and possibly IAF can also operate in Western Pacific. We need these bases in conjunction with bases in Vietnam, Japan and Russia.

Why? And why not use Japanese and Vietnamese bases themselves? I presume they have a few? The only USN base I can think of, where they only call the shots is perhaps Diego Garcia. Is that on offer?

Christopher Sidor wrote:Moreover our agreement clearly states that we will not be providing bases in case action is taken against a Friendly nation. So us getting pulled into something we do not want is also clearly mentioned.

This raises another point in my mind. If we sign this LSA or whatever it is now called, do we need Japanese permission to access, say Okinawa? What are the terms of reference of the US and Japan for using their territory and set up bases? Or can we simply steam into these ports? Similarly, what is the arrangement with Djibouti, Bahrain, Singapore, etc?

The reason I am asking is, can the US tell us that despite the agreement, "sorry, but we cannot let the IN in since the host country denied us permission?". And if this were the case, then we are better off talking direct to the host country - without the man-in-the-middle, i.e. the USN.

Christopher Sidor wrote:Dont look at this agreement with USA only in terms of today. Think of it as what we will need by 2020 and 2025. This agreement will be foundation stone for our navy to operate in two Oceans, The Indian as well as the Pacific. It is good that this agreement got signed now. It is planning for the future.

To do what? I asked this question earlier, "what is it that we want to do?" Are we looking to patrol the world and ensuring safe seas? If so, we will need a far larger number of assets than the proposed "200 capital ships by 2027" the IN has stated publically. But beyond that projection, I haven't heard anything from the Navy. Per my reading (which I admit upfront could be wrong), the IN is looking to dominate the IOR (which of course includes the AS and BoB) and the chokepoints, and be on friendly terms with other navies outside to operate there when needed. For this, they don't need constant access to Okinawa or any bases farther away (like Honolulu, Norfolk, San Diego). Closer to home, they can use Muscat (in lieu of Bahrain), Chahbahar (same), Singapore (Sembawang itself?), Cam Ranh Bay, etc. We just need to talk to these countries and figure something out (and we have been doing so with a few, quietly):
"With berthing rights in Oman and monitoring stations in Madagascar, Mauritius, Kochi and Mumbai, the navy will effectively box in the region to protect sea lanes right from Mozambique and the Cape of Good Hope to the Gulf of Oman," an official said.

Now, I find it very interesting that the full might of US propaganda in the lead up to Mr. Carter's visit spoke only about China and the SCS, and not about the Arabian sea or the West Asian area. And the same for all the proponents of this agreement on this board. I wonder why?
Last edited by arshyam on 19 Apr 2016 19:45, edited 1 time in total.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3462
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby arshyam » 19 Apr 2016 19:44

Also, there was some chatter here about "defining partnership of the century" or something, like in a cricket match :). I didn't come across any coverage about this visit on US media. Not a mention on NPR, nor on larger news channels like CNN, etc. Perhaps, I missed all of them, despite listening in, or perhaps there was no coverage. Not much by way of 'defining', either way...?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

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

Postby Viv S » 19 Apr 2016 20:19

arshyam wrote:Why? And why not use Japanese and Vietnamese bases themselves? I presume they have a few? The only USN base I can think of, where they only call the shots is perhaps Diego Garcia. Is that on offer?

Using the base would require docking the ship there. May be acceptable when there's no threat and the base is easily accessible. But an Indian submarine loitering around in the SCS, for example, may not want to advertise its presence with a public appearance at a Vietnamese or Japanese port. In contrast, US resources in area, namely their fleet replenishment oilers (and other auxiliaries from the Military Sea Lift command) could, when required, be accessed discretely on the high seas.

This raises another point in my mind. If we sign this LSA or whatever it is now called, do we need Japanese permission to access, say Okinawa? What are the terms of reference of the US and Japan for using their territory and set up bases? Or can we simply steam into these ports? Similarly, what is the arrangement with Djibouti, Bahrain, Singapore, etc?

The reason I am asking is, can the US tell us that despite the agreement, "sorry, but we cannot let the IN in since the host country denied us permission?". And if this were the case, then we are better off talking direct to the host country - without the man-in-the-middle, i.e. the USN.

Its sovereign Japanese territory so yes. Same for the rest. Though bilateral agreements with them, particularly Japan & Singapore, could also be written to cover existing US facilities hosted by them.

Now, I find it very interesting that the full might of US propaganda in the lead up to Mr. Carter's visit spoke only about China and the SCS, and not about the Arabian sea or the West Asian area. And the same for all the proponents of this agreement on this board. I wonder why?

Nobody's too concerned about the Iranian or Arab navies. China's an entirely different cup of tea. Chinese naval operations west of the Malacca are a very very major concern for India and those concerns have been discussed in the media in the context of Ashton Carter's visit.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 19 Apr 2016 21:01

Folks,

"LSA" is meant for "Logistics" and the word "base" or bases" is not appropriate for "logistics". The right word is "facility". A tanker in the high sea is also a "facility" that supports "logistics" - in this case supplies fuel. Or a tanker to refuel an air craft.

Also typically "base" projects a picture of people being on a base, thus troops, etc. So, best to keep the word "base" out of the "LSA" discussion.

Viv S wrote:
Now, I find it very interesting that the full might of US propaganda in the lead up to Mr. Carter's visit spoke only about China and the SCS, and not about the Arabian sea or the West Asian area. And the same for all the proponents of this agreement on this board. I wonder why?

Nobody's too concerned about the Iranian or Arab navies. China's an entirely different cup of tea. Chinese naval operations west of the Malacca are a very very major concern for India and those concerns have been discussed in the media in the context of Ashton Carter's visit.


I quick note in support: India had a "Look East" policy for eons, which Modi upgraded to "Act East". The US has a much more recent "Pivot to Asia" policy. The natural meeting point for both is the SCS.

Both India and the US have been challenging China on navigation rights in that area. PLAN has had a history of dictating terms in that area: IN faced two such when PLAN "Welcomed" IN to the CS and then asked another asset to ID itself near 'Nam.

I think in 2015 IN sent 6 ships (at diff times) - without incident - to challenge the PLAN in the SCS (just as the USN did in the recent few months)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Apr 2016 21:14

Christopher Sidor wrote:We seem to forget that this LSA agreement also gives us access to US bases too. We need access to these bases in Western Pacific so that IN and possibly IAF can also operate in Western Pacific. We need these bases in conjunction with bases in Vietnam, Japan and Russia. Now in a conflict with PRC Russia can be expected to stay neutral. It will be Japan, Vietnam and USA who can be expected to give access to these assets.

Moreover our agreement clearly states that we will not be providing bases in case action is taken against a Friendly nation. So us getting pulled into something we do not want is also clearly mentioned.

Dont look at this agreement with USA only in terms of today. Think of it as what we will need by 2020 and 2025. This agreement will be foundation stone for our navy to operate in two Oceans, The Indian as well as the Pacific. It is good that this agreement got signed now. It is planning for the future.

Next step joint patrols.


When that comes we can see. At that time both US and India will be different.

Why sign now when there is a massive delta in power relationship between US and India?

Let US worry about Western Pacific. Its not our near abroad.

Telugu

"Anuvu gaani chota adhikula manaraadu
Konchamundutella koduva gaadu

Konda addamandu konchemai undadaa

Viswadaabhiraama vinura vema!."

Don't mess in areas you have no standing....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 19 Apr 2016 21:23

Christopher, Nehruiji and Indira Gandhi also did these things under the table supporting US moves in Tibet: logistics for Khampa rebellion, Pu nuke powered radio monitoring station in Nanda Devi mountain which has contaminated the area, U2 spy plane flights from Orissa, make RAW subservient to CIA. The name itself is a section of OSS.
All this didn't help in 1962 when China invaded NEFA and Aksai Chin nor in 1971 when US supported Yahya Khan murdering Bangladeshis.

So why do you want to assert non-existent capability?

Do we ever learn anything?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9611
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

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

Postby Yagnasri » 19 Apr 2016 21:32

While I like NM and AD for many of their good works etc, I still do not understand their dealings with US. The only thing that can justify these kinds of steps from Indian side is that we are covering our short time weaknesses. But I am quite sure that when push come to show Khan and others will not support us.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13440
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 19 Apr 2016 21:40

"With berthing rights in Oman and monitoring stations in Madagascar, Mauritius, Kochi and Mumbai, the navy will effectively box in the region to protect sea lanes right from Mozambique and the Cape of Good Hope to the Gulf of Oman," an official said.


While these are important points to enable swift access to desi populations, what is not seen here is any SIGNIFICANT presence in Seychelles, Maldives or Sri Lanka. Or berthing rights in Indonesian islands, even the ones closest to Andamans. Plus absence of a good presence in Antarctica which is going to become extremely important as the ban on operations there is due to expire fairly soon.

At least to balance the Diego Garcia colonial presence, India should have significant resources in Maldives and Seychelles. Plus something in the far Indian Ocean like the fascinating places we vijited during the search for MH370.

To do all this, a pretty large navy with aircraft facilities is needed.

Meanwhile the dlagon is reproducing naval assets very rapidly and pretty soon we will see their bases in all the above-mentioned places, nicely completing the encirclement of India.

Perhaps these are the drivers behind the moves to collaborate with the USN.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

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

Postby TSJones » 19 Apr 2016 21:52

ramana wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:We seem to forget that this LSA agreement also gives us access to US bases too. We need access to these bases in Western Pacific so that IN and possibly IAF can also operate in Western Pacific. We need these bases in conjunction with bases in Vietnam, Japan and Russia. Now in a conflict with PRC Russia can be expected to stay neutral. It will be Japan, Vietnam and USA who can be expected to give access to these assets.

Moreover our agreement clearly states that we will not be providing bases in case action is taken against a Friendly nation. So us getting pulled into something we do not want is also clearly mentioned.

Dont look at this agreement with USA only in terms of today. Think of it as what we will need by 2020 and 2025. This agreement will be foundation stone for our navy to operate in two Oceans, The Indian as well as the Pacific. It is good that this agreement got signed now. It is planning for the future.

Next step joint patrols.


When that comes we can see. At that time both US and India will be different.

Why sign now when there is a massive delta in power relationship between US and India?

Let US worry about Western Pacific. Its not our near abroad.

Telugu

"Anuvu gaani chota adhikula manaraadu
Konchamundutella koduva gaadu

Konda addamandu konchemai undadaa

Viswadaabhiraama vinura vema!."

Don't mess in areas you have no standing....


you can cede Indonesia and SE Asia to China but I don't think that is wise.

India's strategic world should not just center on Pukistan.

You've already got them way out classed both economically and military.

And right now China has huge global ambitions.

Pukistan wouldn't make a pimple on China's butt.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

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

Postby krishna_krishna » 19 Apr 2016 22:07

UBji,

Wonder why MMS didn't sign these even though they were fathers of this pappi jhapi.

I remember a incident when during las days of MMS when Kerry came visiting and then going to Porkis land.whatever he said threatened to MMS took away bling from their faces.

Point I am tryin to make is none of these agreements would be signed, all chai biskoot only. Desh wanted a diluted LSA where we have equal footing like no other country has/ demanded in the past. Massa says let us coax the new govermard promise them carrots on Mumbai investigation etc, and get full deal signed ASAP.

New government in good faith decided to see if they got any tangibles, parallel they wante some critical technology to speed up growth to world power status and needed us help with tech denials, NSG etc. and return we want a Diluted version specific to us and we have more leverage.

Massa says no way jeffe we want to be the boss, plus no predator drones, nuclear reactors, NSG hence no contract only promises to focus in future.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

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

Postby devesh » 19 Apr 2016 23:01

Viv S wrote:Yeah. Sorry forgot the link.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2169 ... itable-boy


I'm sorry but why pollute this forum with your fantasies of being "wooed" and compared to a woman who needs "a boy "....
Last edited by SSridhar on 20 Apr 2016 17:00, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Devesh, there is nothing wrong in this. Don't have to read too much into everything.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 19 Apr 2016 23:19

devesh wrote:
Viv S wrote:Yeah. Sorry forgot the link.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2169 ... itable-boy


I'm sorry but why pollute this forum with your fantasies of being "wooed" and compared to a woman who needs "a boy "....


While the title, etc of that article may be off, the fact remains that the US is wooing India on the Def front, while China is doing exactly the same on the Eco front. Both are attempting to influence India into their camps.

Which is why I think India can play a dominant role here and now, provided she gets out of her old shell of "only IOR", etc. India need not follow anyone, but she can no longer remain where she was with her old thinking. The bigger picture (world) needs India to step up.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3511
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 20 Apr 2016 00:12

What I don't understand is this.

Even if we do accept that we need Unkil to help stave off a threat from PRC (an argument I have opposed on geopolitical grounds previously, but still)...

The PLAN is a remotely secondary component of the Chinese threat against us. IN can hold its own in a two-front war, blockading Karachi and Gwadar as well as holding off any Chinese menace. This is likely to continue to be the case for many years yet. Not that we can sleep on it, but there are much more alarming factors that are already in play.

The immediate Chinese threat is over land and, increasingly, by air. There are 4000 kms of border with far better infrastructure on their side than ours. Thousands of combat aircraft in the PLAAF, so that they can deny us air superiority by sheer weight of numbers if nothing else. Sophisticated, S300 level AD coverage in key regions of the Lanzhou and Chengdu MRs. And a vast arsenal of CMs, IRBMs and shorter range SSMs confronting us across the Tibetan plateau. Add to this the entrenchment of PLA assets in POK/NA and the possibility of Pakistan joining a two-front war effort against us, and we could be in trouble.

I would use Shaurya's post a few pages ago to illustrate how much less of a priority the maritime security angle is. Do we think the Chinese will mind our sinking a few PLAN ships vs. their grabbing 100s or 1000s of sq km of strategically priceless land?

ALL our discussions with the US have principally centred on a maritime security collaboration, where we are least likely to need help in the near-to-medium term. As regards the land/air threat, we are planning to acquire easily movable M777s, and have already acquired C130s and C17s (can these be landed at any forward airstrips of the India-China theatre?) from the US, but it's not really enough to turn the tide. Russian S400s will help reinforce our AD network but of course, the Chinese are acquiring these too.

The biggest issue: infrastructure building, is an immensely high priority. Not just for security of the border but for a host of other reasons, including critical economic development of the Indian northeast. But that is our headache and no one else is going to do it for us. Modi's solution is to grow the economy so that projects like these can be undertaken with high efficiency and no compromise on quality. We can only hope they will be completed by the time we need them.

What about the other issues, which require rapid and entirely military solutions? Will inducting as-large-as-realistically-possible numbers of LCA, a few more MKIs and 36 Rafales (if that ever goes beyond chai-biskoot) really be enough to neutralize the PLAAF exposure along this entire front? What can be done about the Chinese missile threat... point defence weaponry, ABMs, anything in between? Only the IA modernization seems to be a source of some optimism at least; we already have some of the best mountain divisions in the world, they're gaining experience with combined arms tactics and augmenting themselves with air support (LCH, AH-64s etc.), and even if Arjun vs. T90 squabbles take some time to resolve, much of the China border isn't really MBT country.

Honestly, it is in the air-land warfare dept. that we could use help from Unkil & co. if at all. Problem is, Unkil isn't willing to give us anything that could help in these spheres of relatively critical need. We cannot count on aircraft engines, armed drones, or any kind of anti-missile defense system better than the very pricey PAC-2s they offered us ten years ago (again subject to our signing an alphabet soup of agreements). EMALS is all very nice but what good does it do us if 13th Group Army races across Bhutan and cuts off the Siliguri-to-Alipurdar corridor, cleaving off the two halves of Eastern command and saturating any attempt to relieve the northeastern states with an incessant rain of dingdongs? This is FAR more realistic a worry than a PLAN armada laying siege to Andaman & Nicobar islands.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13440
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Apr 2016 00:27

Krishna-krishna:

I have been trying to make this point under the radar throughout this thread. I say, look at Dlagon. They will sign anything with anyone, and next day they will go and do what they want.

The US actually does the same, so did the Brishit Empyah.

What these BILATERAL agreements do is that ****IF BOTH WANT**** their guvrmand has the flexibility to do something. IOW, one does not want to wait until KSA is smoking, to wonder how to get permission to go and evacuate citjens. Just an example.

At other times, other **difficulties** will be found, that stand in the way of particular actions. Pls see "Yes Minister" for examples of how that is done, our Babucracy is in no way lacking in such skills. Their whole joy in life is figuring out how to make life difficult for others when it suits their purpose.

Perhaps one difference between MMS and NaMo is that one is a pedantic text-book read-aloud person, while the other is by birth a chaiwala. One is afraid to sign anything saying **My Word Is My Virtue*** while the other says **Bijnej eej Bijnej** So one thinks of all the reasons why one should not act, while the other says, HEY! Chance to act! Worry about details later.

One effect is that NaMo is taking away the Babucracy's power to clog up phoren policy and domestic action indefinitely. He goes and SIGNS! Then the discussion is centered on "case-by-case basis", and decides if each case merits intervention, or, as the writer above said, for instance, Navy-to-Navy interactions would proceed on automatic control, not having to wait on Phren Sarbhij Babucracy for everything.

So while I share all the concerns expressed here, I say that NaMo and his crowd also know those things. But they are also now confident that where needed, they can and will clog up any phoren evil designs, agreement or no agreement.

Same on the US side, which was my point. Just a simple example. There is I am sure a BiLateral Education Exchange Agreement that strongly encourages exchange of students, scholars, scientific knowledge, between Nations. Does that take away each guvrmand's ability to make life difficult who go through these well-agreed notions? Why do you think it is any easier or less scrutinized in defense?

To paraphrase the Samoothirippad of Kozhikode, when his Mantris/Baboos counselled him not to grant the Portuguese request to take a sample of a pepper vine with them (no doubt siding with the infamous Kozhikode smuggler mafia):
They can take the pepper vine, can they take the Monsoon, hain?


And he was right. They only took over several towns and villages, kidnapped and enslaved the citjens, conducted the Inquisition, became imperial occupiers. But they could never take the Monsoon away. Q.E.D.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16477
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

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

Postby NRao » 20 Apr 2016 01:49

I am jumping way ahead of myself, wanted to use some of this to address SSridhar, but wanted to post some as a FYI.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7019&p=2007975#p2007975

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

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

Postby krishna_krishna » 20 Apr 2016 05:37

SSridharji, I disagree with you on one point. I do not think this agreement would be signed atleast with current US administration. They will wait for the new administration and expecting it would be Hilary C and she would still press on continuation of previous administration the actions of the new administration are expected to be more hurting Indian interest and with good financial year expected this year expect the government to do hard bargain or not sign at all... JMT my two naia paisa onlee

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13440
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 20 Apr 2016 05:46

Confucius say Mao Coat plevent dhoti-shiveling.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5240
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Postby ShauryaT » 20 Apr 2016 06:59

UlanBatori wrote:So while I share all the concerns expressed here, I say that NaMo and his crowd also know those things. But they are also now confident that where needed, they can and will clog up any phoren evil designs, agreement or no agreement.
Similar arguments have been presented for other agreements, if Ki pharkah painda hai? is the attitude then LSA also does not matter for the cooperation when both want it has a transactional mechanism in place. Pharkah painda hai, is liye toh khujli hondi hai. Coolieuon ki jaga dena chahte hain, bhen de takka.

To paraphrase the Samoothirippad of Kozhikode, when his Mantris/Baboos counselled him not to grant the Portuguese request to take a sample of a pepper vine with them (no doubt siding with the infamous Kozhikode smuggler mafia):
They can take the pepper vine, can they take the Monsoon, hain?


And he was right. They only took over several towns and villages, kidnapped and enslaved the citjens, conducted the Inquisition, became imperial occupiers. But they could never take the Monsoon away. Q.E.D.
Translation, he knew the other wonderful things that would happen and let it happen anyways? That is what we get with Ki pharakh painda hai attitude.....bhai ji: Pharkah painda hai.

But as NRao says, we should change and do away with the old thinking, after all the Portugese did bring in many good things did they not - ostensibly in exchange for pepper! In another thread, I am told by someone how casteist we are leading to our own downfall - guess as justification for the rape and plunder. But hats off to you for making the point, in a way only you can.

RD: Bang on. A few naval assets are not worth lost territory. Need 10 mountain divisions armed and mobile and then pull the rug under Tibet.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53813
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2016 07:58

I want to remind people this is India- US relations thread. Not other way round.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7031
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 20 Apr 2016 08:42

And let's wait till some semblance of the final document is out...

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20967
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Apr 2016 11:08

These are the people who want the LSA with us. :lol:


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1d1 day ago New Delhi,

India Unhappy with its state DRDO had to get many components replaced with new ones.

Retweet 9 Like 4




Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 1d1 day ago New Delhi, India

The wind tunnel that America has supplied to DRDO as part of the offsets for the C-17 is decades old.

21 retweets 11 likes

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 20 Apr 2016 12:43

^^So finally the wind tunnel came through even though the tech is decades old. Boeing was supposed to built a state-of-the-art wind tunnel near Chitradurga in Karnataka. I guess the only way forward for us is to carve our own path...

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Apr 2016 12:55

krishna_krishna wrote:SSridharji, I disagree with you on one point. I do not think this agreement would be signed atleast with current US administration.

krishna, OK. But, I still feel that the LISMOA is just weeks away from being signed off.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Apr 2016 13:25

NRao, I thought I had posted my last reply on this, but your quoting from the IN’s maritime strategy document in support of your argument that the India-US LSA would somehow act as a model for India’s similar agreements with various countries stretching from Red Sea to Pacific Ocean, because this is the area that the IN has claimed as its ‘area of interest’, makes me post this.

The US administration has always indicated that not signing the three foundational agreements is hampering the India-US defence cooperation from reaching its full potential, a statement which indicates that the LSA is used as a leverage by the US. There doesn’t seem to be any opposition within the Indian armed forces for signing the LSA, but they do not want CISMOA & BECA. So, the question is how is signing the LSA alone now going to advance the DTTI because it is almost a given now that the other two would be shelved. Those who suggest that the LSA is just a simple arrangement and we don’t need to engage in ‘complex’ arguments need to answer this.

The LSA facilitates all branches of the armed forces of both nations, but implicitly, we have been talking mostly about the two Navies which shows where the most emphasis lies. The LSA is a convenient arrangement, no doubt, for squaring up mutual expenses incurred in exercises, HADR activities, R&R situations, training, emergencies, UN-mandated operations such as anti-piracy etc. It brings down costs as home-force rates will be charged even to hosted-forces under the LSA. It may even convey a welcome political message to a common adversary. Apart from the bilateral exercises that are conducted alternately in India & the US and the multilateral exercises that India participates in (such as Red Flag or RIMPAC), the Indian deployment in the Pacific is next to nothing. Even the largest and most significant naval exercise Op Malabar is either conducted in Bay of Bengal (mostly) or off Okinawa (recent times). With Australia joining the fray, it may be conducted near their shores too in future. But, it has not been conducted off western US shores for obvious reason of sending the message to the 'common adversary'. Therefore, the LSA is not too beneficial to the IN. As for conveying a message to the adversary, it is obvious that LSA is not even intended to do so. Indian leaders are having a series of meeting right now with their Chinese counterparts (FM Sushma Swaraj, RM Parrikar & NSA Doval) and yet India didn’t want to upset the Chinese sensitivities (your word) by signing it before these meetings. So, the LSA would be hugely beneficial only to the US. There is no problem with that either so long as we recognize that rather than making this look like a mutually and equally beneficial agreement, we see it for what it is truly worth. This is a David & Goliath kind of situation. It is obvious that the US Pivot has India as the lynchpin. Once we appreciate the reality, we Indians should see how best to maximize benefits for India. Now, that would be playing realpolitik and I would welcome that.

You have also quoted the post from Indian Naval thread on IN’s Primary and Secondary areas of interest. There is nothing surprising there, isn’t it? As India’s trade grows and more and more sea-routes become important, as the Indian diaspora spreads across these regions, as Indian capabilities in HA&DR grow significantly and as nations in these areas look up to it for assistance, the IN will have to consider them as their areas of interest and prepare for projecting maritime and operational power. I agree with you that in two or three decades IN may need to even semi-permanently operate in non-IOR regions. But, today IOR is its primary focus and that is where it is the net guarantor of security. Between Hormuz & Malacca straits. That is why, the IN is fiercely possessive about Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles in its naval sphere of influence. Of course, IN forays into Indo-China Sea regularly but that is not as a ‘net guarantor of security’, but to assert the freedom of navigation for its own self, for the sake of its important SLOCs to Korea, Japan and Western US which are threatened by China. This is a significant difference, IMO. India’s behaviour in the IOR is completely unlike those of China and the US.

As I see it, the LSA argument in India has three streams.
- One who completely oppose that for ideological reasons (the Communists),
- one who unnecessarily fear a loss of sovereignty and strategic-space, and
- one who do not see any overwhelming benefits that justify the agreement while also feeling the fear of being blindsided by US intentions because of history.

I find myself in the last category.

I would end by quoting from Clausewitz: “In politics, there are two kinds of coalitions, one that aims expressly to defeat or coerce the enemy, and another that aims to weaken, to preoccupy both the enemy and the ally.” I fear the latter coalition.
Last edited by ramana on 20 Apr 2016 19:13, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added - to the points. ramana

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

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

Postby Christopher Sidor » 20 Apr 2016 14:07

The bases on offer for IN will be Guam in Western Pacific. We already have done joint exercises near Diego Garcia with USN. We do not need access to Diego Garcia. We already have access to Mauritius and in conjunction with IN naval bases in peninsular India should be sufficient for the ocean which bears our name. What we are concerned about is Western Pacific.

Having access to USN bases in Western Pacific conjunction with the Vietnamese, Japanese and Russian adds to the bases which IN could use. This is similar to having more arrows or options to draw upon if need arises and also prevents a single point of dependency.

We are not looking at patrolling the world seas or becoming the world policeman. There is already one entity for that, USA and its navy USN. Our aim is that in any future conflict with PRC our Navy should not be tied down to our Ocean and wait for PLAN and PLAAF to bring the war to its door step. I would rather have IN and possibly IAF operate in Western Pacific and sink the domestic and international shipping bound for PRC's ports. I want to disrupt their coast line.
Only blockading Malacca Straits will not work by 2020. Consider the following
1) There are cases of tankers getting diverted mid way. There can be tankers which advertise that they are headed for Cambodia or East Timor and get diverted to PRC in the mid way. Recently the tanker Minerva Pisces which was taking 8 Lakh liters of diesel from Gujarat, India to EU was diverted mid way in its journey to New York. This happened in April-2016. So the only way blockade will work will be if we do not permit any oil and gas tanker going to any country of Western Pacific. And by doing so we will earn the ire not only of other countries in East Asia but also from South Western Asia, North Africa and Western Africa.
2) blocking the Mallaca straits leaves the other straits, for example Lombok Strait, of Indonesia and the seas between Australia - Indonesia free for trade merchandise to flow. In fact there are some tankers and ships which do not use Mallaca Straits at all.
3) PRC is shipping increasing quantity of trade merchandise via rail to EU, its biggest market.
4) We do not disrupt PRC's trade with North America by blockading Mallaca Straits. The ships can still go.
We can blockade the Mallaca straits and repeat the dastardly mistake of Operation Parakaram. A monumental fruitless exercise of no consequence.

If IN is not able to operate in Western Pacific then it will not be able to neutralize the threat that PLAN and PLAAF will pose to shipping which is destined to India. Significant quantities of crude oil and Gas is shipped from Russian Far east to India. Our trade with East Asia will also be subject to disruption by PLAN and PLAAF.

PLA and CPC may not mind us sinking their PLAN ships but they will definitely mind if we stop their sea borne commerce. And the only serious way to do is either to mine their harbors or blockade their ports. And in such operations we will need access to bases in Western Pacific including Guam.

Like I said dont think of present, it will be gone. It is the future that we have to live in and plan for that. Past is something which has gone and cannot be changed. We have to be prepared for tomorrow and this LSA agreement is a step in the right direction. We took the same attitude to PRC till 1959-60 and by then it was too late. If we had heeded Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's warning in late 1940's and prepared accordingly we would never had the ignominy of facing 1962, where our PM had to go with a begging bowl to the very same country whom he had said what not crap and called imperialist. Let us not repeat the same mistake. Let us not have this attitude, we will cross the bridge when we come to it.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

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

Postby SSridhar » 20 Apr 2016 14:21


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20303
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

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

Postby Philip » 20 Apr 2016 14:28

Nicely put SS.I would place myself in both second and last categories. I don't have any ideologcial antipathy with the US,in fact eco-cooperation is great for both nations.But military? I have serious doubts because of the UIS's abysmal track record worldwide starting from Korea,Vietnam to the horrendous legacy it has left the world in the MEast,from Afghanistan to Libya.India cannot in any way be tainted as belonging to the US camp and its human rights abuses ,Camp Gitmo,Abu Ghraib,for example.

As I said before,studying the rise and rise of John Co.,establishing "factories" , on Indian soil is the equiv of basing US logistic/war material on our soil.Who will be the watchmen of the aforesaid US factories and its eqpt.? Will we be allowed to guard or inspect such warehouses/factories? Nein. In addition the volume of such visits for resupply and "R&R" will increase.These are to put it plainly aka boozing and whoring,and with thousands of sailors in a CBG visit to our ports will inevitably create problems with the locals,both admin and civvies.Look at the problems that the Japanese are having in Okinawa.

India must carve out its own destiny itself and not rely on other nations for their "shields". If we could carve out our own N-arsenal by ourselves,we need no servility on our part and need to take cover behind the behind of Uncle Sam.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

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

Postby Christopher Sidor » 20 Apr 2016 14:41

The LSA agreement does not mean that we are having permanent USN or US Marines or USAAF or US Army bases in India like Okinawa or the former Subic Bay of USN. We are giving access to USN and possibly USAAF to our air bases and in turn get access to their bases.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20967
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Apr 2016 14:50

Christopher Sidor wrote:The LSA agreement does not mean that we are having permanent USN or US Marines or USAAF or US Army bases in India like Okinawa or the former Subic Bay of USN. We are giving access to USN and possibly USAAF to our air bases and in turn get access to their bases.



why access to airbases?? or naval bases or any effing base at all??

Repairs can be done in a commercial Indian shipyard, don't need a Naval Base for this and their precious planes can land at civil airports like they are doing almost daily now.

we can also use their commercial facilities like they do ours. why involve the armed forces assets. WHY??

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20967
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Apr 2016 15:02

The RAW facts :wink:


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Apr 18 New Delhi, India

In parleys they make quiet offers of seminars, travels, placement for kids and even re-location.

7 retweets 4 likes


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Apr 18 New Delhi, India

BTW scores of Indian-origin US Scientists are deployed each year to find out what's going on in ISRO, DRDO & DAE.

28 retweets 9 likes


Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 Apr 18 New Delhi, India

As a senior DRDO scientist once said: 'They (the Russians) at least lift the skirt once payment is made, the Americans don't even do that.'

14 retweets 4 likes

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

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

Postby Zynda » 20 Apr 2016 17:03

^^Very clever. On one hand POTUS/GOTUS goes around saying how India should improve on corruption index and what not and on the other hand, they themselves play the game behind closed doors. Some one should start mentioning that it takes two to tango. Why are US OEMs "encouraging" corruption in 3rd world unwashed corrupt countries?

Question is, how is US placing these Indian origin scientists in ISRO etc? Are these via JV programs? Per my research, it is very very difficult for an external candidate to get in to these organizations. Are the US playing similar games with the Chinese as well? Chinese (at least commercial aerospace) folks are hiring engineering resources aggressively in the US.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

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

Postby Bade » 20 Apr 2016 17:11

As far as ISRO is concerned, it does not do lateral hires at all. In fact so many unemployed ISRO/Univ PhDs do post-docs in the US and never go back at all. The only shortage they have perhaps is engineers since many quit over the past decades to go to IT-Vity as it paid well even in India. So those tweets are balderdash.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20967
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

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

Postby chetak » 20 Apr 2016 17:43

Bade wrote:As far as ISRO is concerned, it does not do lateral hires at all. In fact so many unemployed ISRO/Univ PhDs do post-docs in the US and never go back at all. The only shortage they have perhaps is engineers since many quit over the past decades to go to IT-Vity as it paid well even in India. So those tweets are balderdash.


who is speaking about lateral hires, sirji??

"deployed" meaning use for specific purpose in this case and not placement in the organisation per se.

Interaction can be done in seminars, meetings, product promotion dinners and "hospitality"

foolish for anyone to enter any org as a lateral hire just to snoop.

liquor is far quicker and safer too. :wink:

one can't be arrested for boozing and blabbing, no??

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

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

Postby SaiK » 20 Apr 2016 17:55

U.S. Defense Secretary In India: A Foundational Visit
http://swarajyamag.com/world/us-defense ... onal-visit


Image
Image


conclusion is nearly right

As India bandwagons with the U.S., it is necessary for New Delhi to have a clear understanding of the ends for which the engagement with Washington is pursued. Then only can India also play the sophisticated game of ‘strategic autonomy’ that this engagement is.


If we have an universal policy, then spill it out is the message. It is okay to be different and powerful yet kind to all Earthians.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests