Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

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.
periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby periaswamy » 26 Oct 2017 02:11

Rudradevji, nice one. The offshore balancing of India and China is clearly part of their current thinking, along with Balancing the Iran/Qatar vs. KSA/Turkey/Egypt combine in west asia. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see any rethinking of old paradigms going on anywhere in the US FPE, or at least none of that showed during the Obama Regime...the current one sometimes seems to have broken from the past, but the tired and worn-out ideas keep showing up over and over again, as we are seeing with Pakistan. Maybe some reality is creeping into the empty spaces between the ears in the US FPE.

Kissinger's "duosphere of prosperity" with China has proven to be a bust, but the clueless tools in the US FPE have not bothered to move out of the box created by Kissinger as far as China is concerned -- Trumperoonie seems to be trying but it is all too little too late, given how the NoKo/China combining have managed to fend of any pressure from the US so far.

In addition, the other gaand elder Zbig Brzyzenski's "Grand Chessboard" theories of a EU/US/NATO combine forming a protectorate of the newly created states from USSR's demise, to followed by destroying Russia's Naval power via denial of access to warm water ports have also come crashing down while destroying Russia's oil-dependent economy, mostly because Vlad "Dr.Evil" Putin just won't cooperate with ZB's grand plan for the universe.

Saudi Arabia had bribed everyone in Washington DC starting the time of Bush Sr's presidency all through Obama's presidency, with the only tangible result being USA becoming closer to a police state to "protect freedom and democracy of US citizens" from the terrorism radiating out of KSA's funding of terror mullahs worldwide.
Last edited by periaswamy on 26 Oct 2017 03:26, edited 2 times in total.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Rudradev » 26 Oct 2017 02:24

Periaswamy ji, good observations.

I don't think there is yet any "new thinking", but a realization that the "old thinking" no longer works has definitely begun to sink in at significant levels in the SD and DOD (it still persists among the Kissinger acolytes in academia and stink-tanks, but will die out there too over time). So right now it is an interregnum where the FPE has begun to abandon the old rulebook, and doesn't yet have a new one, and therefore is "winging it" to an unprecedented extent since 1945.

"Winging it" in my experience can involve a regression to more primitive (and hence, potentially predictable) instinctual behaviours... hence my kite flying about Levy Walks vs. Brownian Walks :mrgreen:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48085
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 26 Oct 2017 03:41

Rudradev wrote:


In immunology, lymphocytes scanning vast numbers of host cells for antigens in infected tissues also do this. It is called a "Levy Walk" pattern and replaces the standard "Brownian Motion" balancing paradigm that Kissinger, and Dulles/Acheson before him, inherited from Caroe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405745/



You know this Levy walk pattern is what Abrahamism derivatives: Christianity, Islam, Marxism, post-modernism adapts to in new hosts. This explains the dysfunctional SMW in India.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 26 Oct 2017 09:25



So much for the visit of US secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to India. US speaks with perfidious forked tongue on Mohammadden Terrorism being a global problem and winks and nods at the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s support of Pakistan based Mohammadden Terror outfits that target India.

Foreign Minister of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, says that UN designated Mohammadden Terrorism outfit Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s name was not on the list of 75 militants the US had handed over to the Islamic Republic.

It will be interesting to know if other Pakistan based Mohammadden Terrorists that are focussed on targeting India such as Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and its boss Syed Salahuddin alias Mohammad Yusuf Shah are on the US list:

Hafiz Saeed's name not on list of 75 militants handed over by US: Khawaja Asif

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2017 10:18

Forked tongue indeed! Look at the cold-bloodedness of the US drug mafia who want poor starving Indians to be ripped and r*paed with their ultra-expensive medical items.off
I am on a committee for a speciality hospital which looks into/approves clinical tests,etc. for new drugs,procedures,medical high-tech items like stents,etc.,etc. Foreign stents cost at least 5 times than an Indian made one.One of the chief gifts and virtues of of this govt. reducing the cost of stents.Recently a stent for a particularly risky procedure for the aorta was priced at 25 lakhs! The co. was willing to provide a few free if the hospital could guarantee at least 20-25 cases a yr. There re indeed well-heeled indiividuals to whom that would be peanuts,but it only shows how expensive medical treatment is for the ordinary middle-class Indian,struggling to survive and maintain a respectable lifestyle.

Recent report another report in another paper today on the same issue,but this time threatening us with repercussions,denying us high-tech med eqpt. if we do not relent!
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health ... 800963.ece
U.S. pressing India to avoid capping medical device prices
REUTERS NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 05, 2017 11:12 IST

In the recent months, the government had slashed prices of medical devices such as heart stents by upto 75% | Photo Credit: mironos
The U.S. wants India to allow medical-technology firms to withdraw products from the market if they do not wish to sell at government determined rates

The United States is pressing India not to extend price caps on medical devices and wants New Delhi to allow firms to withdraw products from the market if they do not wish to sell at government determined rates, a U.S. trade official told Reuters.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has in recent months slashed prices of medical devices such as knee implants and heart stents by up to 75% to make them more affordable.

But the $5 billion Indian medical-technology industry — which counts U.S. firms such as Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific Corp and Johnson & Johnson as key players — has protested these moves, saying they hurt innovation, profits and future investment.

Highlights
India policy on medical device price caps a concern: US official
U.S. says in talks to resolve issue through bilateral talks
India wants to make medical devices more affordable for patients
Foreign firms disappointed with India's policy on price caps
A senior United States Trade Representative (USTR) official said they were pressing India to not extend price caps to other devices, allow for higher pricing for technologically advanced equipment and let companies withdraw their products if they wish to.

India last month issued orders which effectively barred companies from any immediate withdrawals of heart stents or knee implants following price capping to ensure adequate supply of devices for patients. Abbott, for example, wants to withdraw one of its stents saying it's not commercially viable under government set prices, but India has rejected its plea.

“It is a principal concern for the United States,” the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity.

India's trade ministry, which co-chairs such discussions under the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum did not respond to a request for comment. The federal drug pricing regulator referred questions to the department of pharmaceutical, which did not respond to queries.

Mr. Modi, however, has previously said that providing affordable healthcare to patients takes precedence over the interests of companies. The government has equated high margins charged for some medical devices with “illegal profiteering". In some cases these margins can exceed 400 %.
*(3 hearty cheers to Mr. Modi and co. for this principled stand.He and the GOI must not relent.)

The United States has been increasing pressure on India to revise its stance on price caps for medical devices. A person familiar with the matter said assistant USTR Mark Linscott and his delegation last month conveyed their concerns to Indian trade officials in New Delhi.

In May, a group of U.S. Congress members urged India to reconsider its decision to cap prices of stents, which are tiny wire mesh tubes used to treat blocked arteries.

Tanoubi Ngangom, an associate fellow for healthcare at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, said India must continue to develop policies based on its requirements and not succumb to diplomatic pressure.

“Indian government should retain a pro-public health stance on pricing medical devices to ensure access to affordable healthcare,” she said.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 26 Oct 2017 10:47

arun wrote:


So much for the visit of US secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to India. US speaks with perfidious forked tongue on Mohammadden Terrorism being a global problem and winks and nods at the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s support of Pakistan based Mohammadden Terror outfits that target India.

Foreign Minister of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, says that UN designated Mohammadden Terrorism outfit Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s name was not on the list of 75 militants the US had handed over to the Islamic Republic.

It will be interesting to know if other Pakistan based Mohammadden Terrorists that are focussed on targeting India such as Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and its boss Syed Salahuddin alias Mohammad Yusuf Shah are on the US list:

Hafiz Saeed's name not on list of 75 militants handed over by US: Khawaja Asif


Going by the below headline and events described in above quoted previous post, both of India's key concerns, H1B Visa and Cross border Mohammadden Terrorism sponsored by the Punjabi dominated Military controlled Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan have been perfidiously given short shrift by the US. Trust our Government will take anything the US peddles with a barrel-full of salt:

H-1B visa, Pakistan dominate Rex Tillerson and Sushma Swaraj's talks; India, US agree to strengthen bilateral ties

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 26 Oct 2017 12:34

Full Text of Statements of our Minister of External affairs Sushma Swaraj and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson followed by a Q&A session that touched upon India’s relations with the DPRK aka North Korea, Indo-Iranian collaboration for Chabahar Port, State sponsored cross border Mohammadden Terrorism emanating from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic republic of Pakistan and the H1B Visa:

Press Availability With Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj

Excerpts.

On Pakistan:

Secretary Tillerson and I agreed that we will work closely to ensure that no country provides safe havens for terrorists, and those who provide support to terrorists or use terrorism are held accountable. We agreed that Pakistan should take immediate steps to dismantle safe havens for terrorist groups and bring the perpetrators of Mumbai and Pathankot and other terrorist attacks. We believe that effective action by Pakistan against all terrorist groups without distinction is critical to the success of the new strategy of President Trump.


On H1B, L1 and Totalisation i.e. related to the compulsory deduction of social security from salaries of Indian's in the US who get no benefit of the same as they return to India well before they are entitled to receive any benefits in the US:

............ we discussed the very significant contribution to the U.S. economy of Indian-skilled professionals who travel and work under H-1B and L-1 visa programs.

I have also sought Secretary Tillerson’s support for resolution of the long-pending issue of totalization, and I have asked that no – nothing by the U.S. should be done which will affect or adversely affect India’s interests. Innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic partnership have been an important foundation of our relations.



On People’s Republic of China pushing CPEC connectivity project through Indian territory occupied by the Mohammadden Terrorism fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan and their i.e. PR China, ignoring the verdict under UNCLOS regards their dubious territorial claims in the South China Sea:

We also discussed the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, and connectivity issues. During prime minister’s visit, both our countries had agreed on a set of principles that would guide connectivity initiatives in this region, particularly the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also reaffirmed the importance of freedom of navigation, overflight, and unimpeded commerce in accordance with international laws in order to achieve a free, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. Secretary Tillerson and I agreed that we will work together and with other partners to promote cooperation based on these principles.


On US military equipment sales to India:

The United States supports India’s emergence as a leading power and will continue to contribute to Indian capabilities to provide security throughout the region. In this regard, we are willing and able to provide India advanced technologies for its military modernization efforts. This includes ambitious offers from American industry for F-16 and F-18 fighter planes.


On DPRK aka North Korea:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with – oh. Jonathan Landay with Reuters. Madam External Affairs Minister, you say India fully shares Secretary Tillerson’s vision for greater – for greatly expanding U.S.-Indian relations and for India to play a greater security role in the Indo-Pacific region. In that context, the Trump administration is pressing countries around the world to cut diplomatic and trade ties with North Korea, to strangle the hard currency flows that fund North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. India and North Korea maintain embassies in each other’s capitals, and bilateral trade in 2013 reportedly totaled more than $90 million, some 60 million of it Indian exports that include petroleum products critical to North Korea’s military. Is India prepared to shut down trade with Pyongyang and close the embassies to demonstrate its readiness to expand its strategic partnership with the United States? …………………{Rest Snipped}……………

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER SWARAJ: (Via interpreter) Thank you very much. The topic you have raised with regard to the DPRK – and we have actually had a very open discussion between myself and Secretary Tillerson and both of the points that you have touched upon, which means reduction of trade and closing down of the embassy. In fact, I have talked to Secretary Tillerson about these two topics with regard to trade. The trade between us and DPRK has reduced considerably. In fact, I can very safely say it’s at a minimal level.

Now, with regard to the embassy, the size of the Indian embassy in Pyongyang is very small, but the fact remains there is an embassy, and I mentioned to Secretary Tillerson that some of your friend countries’ embassies should in fact stay there because we should leave some channels of communication with the DPRK. Many times you have to talk to the other person there. Sometimes you need dialogue to lead to solutions of problems, and I think there should be one embassy in that country of a country that you call a friend state. And I do understand that Secretary Tillerson has understood my stance on this very intelligently and he’s understood the fact that we have considerably reduced the volume of trade and our embassy is small. But I still feel that the embassy should remain there and he has appreciated this point.


On Chabahar Port:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with – oh. Jonathan Landay with Reuters. …………………

Mr. Secretary, in 2016, India and Afghanistan signed an agreement for India to develop the southern Iranian port of Chabahar and build a railway line to southern Afghanistan, creating a trade corridor that would free Afghanistan from reliance on Pakistan’s port of Karachi, to which India has no access. India is investing millions in the project, which will allow it to expand trade and assistance to Afghanistan, a key pillar of your administration’s new South Asia policy, yet the Trump administration also has embarked on a new strategy that takes a more aggressive stance towards Iran in order to blunt its expanding influence in the Middle East. Isn’t there a major risk that the two U.S. strategies will clash in Chabahar, that Iran could put the brakes on that project, seriously undermining India’s ability to fulfill the role envisioned for it in the Trump administration’s plan for stabilizing Afghanistan? How do you prevent that from happening given the serious tensions between the United States and Iran? ……………………

SECRETARY TILLERSON: With respect to the recently announced policy of the United States towards Iran, I think it’s important to keep a few things in mind. That policy, as you know, had three important pillars to it. One is dealing with the nuclear plan of action. The second important pillar of that policy, though, is to deal with Iran’s other destabilizing activities – their ballistic missile programs, their export of arms to terrorist organizations and their destabilizing export of foreign fighters, involvement in the revolution in Yemen, Syria, and other places. And the third pillar, though, which, again, doesn’t get talked as much about, is a support for moderate voices inside of Iran, that we know there are strong feelings and values inside of Iran that we want to promote in terms of one day the Iranian people being able to retake control of their government. They live under this oppressive revolutionary regime, and we do not want to harm the Iranian people. Our fight is not with the Iranian people. Our disagreements are with the revolutionary regime.

So with that context, as we are taking actions to impose sanctions on the regime – and, in particular, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – it’s our objective to deny financing capacity and to disrupt the activities related to these malign behaviors. It’s not our objective to harm the Iranian people, nor is it our objective to interfere with legitimate business activities that are going on with other businesses, whether they be from Europe, India, or agreements that are in place that promote economic development and activity to the benefit of our friends and allies as well. We think that there isn’t – there’s no contradiction within that policy and, in fact, we’re calling on some of these same counterparties to join us in imposing sanctions on Iran’s activities, and in particular, the activities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and their subsidiaries to punish them for the destabilizing activities that we see Iran carrying out in the region.

So we do – we don’t see a contradiction there and we have very open dialogue and discussions with all of our friends and allies around the policy to ensure it’s well understood. But also, if we see areas of concern, we’ll engage with our friends and partners on ways that we believe they can help put the pressure on Iran to push back on the destabilizing activities of Iran that I think are of a concern to many in the world.


On cross border Mohammadden Terrorism emanating from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan:

QUESTION: Thank you (inaudible). Good afternoon, excellencies. I am Ashish from India TV. My question, Secretary, for you is that you just mentioned that safe havens of terror won’t be tolerated, but we have seen off and on how Pakistan state has been harboring terrorists and supporting cross-border terrorism. So – and whenever the complicity is pointed out to them, sir, they very easily get – giving some tactical condition or some false assurances. So since you have just come from Pakistan to India, how do you look forward to deal with this issue, to solve this issue, which is very crucial to us? ……………..{Snipped}……………

SECRETARY TILLERSON: In our discussions with Pakistani leadership yesterday in Islamabad we had a very open, frank exchange around the concerns the United States shares with other regional partners and allies – India, but also Afghanistan – that there are too many terrorist organizations that find a safe place in Pakistan from which to conduct their operations and attacks against other countries. We have extended to Pakistan certain expectations we have of their government and their leadership to deal with, in particular, these organizations, the leaders of these organizations, and we are attempting to put in place a mechanism of cooperation through information sharing, but not just information sharing; action – action to be taken to begin to deny these organizations the ability to launch attacks against others.

Quite frankly, my view – and I expressed this to the leadership of Pakistan – is we also are concerned about the stability and security of Pakistan’s government as well. As these terrorist organizations have enlarged their numbers and have enlarged their strength and their capability within Pakistan’s borders, this can lead to a threat to Pakistan’s own stability. It is not in anyone’s interest that the Government of Pakistan be destabilized. And so we think we have a mutually shared interest in not just containing these organizations, but ultimately eliminating these organizations. I think all of us have to commit ourselves to the eradication of terrorism, of violent extremism in whatever form it takes. And this is going to require international and global efforts and a common view and a common objective and mission.

And so these are the expectations that we have put in place with the leadership of Pakistan. We want to work with Pakistan in a positive way because we think this is in their interest as well longer term.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Philip » 26 Oct 2017 15:23

And so the waltz will go on and on and on and on,with the nation in danger due to terrorism,poor Pakistan! They have much to celebrate from Tilly-the-Silly's visit,as it ended on a "positive" note!

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby TKiran » 26 Oct 2017 17:05

Regarding US offer to India, we should agree to whatever conditions they put, for example, if they say, we will not transfer technology but only sell, then, we should say, OK, we will buy from you, but products should be manufactured in India.

We should make an agency call it, regulatory authority, and do inspections at the production facility, and steal the technology by "Nayana", or "bhayana", and give it to public sector defence organizations, train entrepreneurs and give them the technology, also say tell the American corporation, that say for example, the 5 axis CNC machine should​ be scrapped after a year, and by stealth buy up some scrap for re-engineering.

Remaster technology and give it to Indian entrepreneurs.

This is called "deception" in statecraft. It's very useful tool, it's certainly is not good for "personal or professional life", it's adharma in personal or professional life, but is perfectly OK in statecraft.

The following is a quote from Panchatantra

. {STHIRAJEEVEE SUGGESTS ‘DVAIDHEE-BHAAVA’ (DUPLICITY)}

SthiraJeevee said -
“Son! All these ministers have given their advice based on the administrative sciences only. They are useful sometime or other, no doubt! But now is the time to take recourse to ‘Duplicity’ (double-dealing).
It is said -
अविश्वासं सदा तिष्टेत्सन्धिना विग्रहेण च
द्वैधीभावं समाश्रित्य पापे शत्रौ बलीयसि [60]

If the enemy is wicked and powerful,
one should completely distrust him at all times;
take recourse to the policy of duplicity;
make a pretence of friendship and plan his destruction secretly.

Not trusting anyone yourself, but making the enemy trust you by pleasing him in many ways, you can destroy him easily.
It is said -
उच्छेद्यमपि विद्वांसो वर्धयन्त्यरिमेकदा
गुडेन वर्धितः श्लेष्मा सुखं वृद्ध्या निपात्यते [61]

Though the need is there to destroy,
the wise man should build up the enmity at first.
The phlegm which increases by the molasses can be easily destroyed
once it has reached a particular level.

स्त्रीणां शत्रोः कुमित्रस्य पण्यस्त्रीणां विशेषतः
यो भवेदेकभावेन न स जीवति मानवः [62]

A man who trusts women, enemies, a wicked friend,
and especially the prostitutes, does not live for long.

कृत्यं देवद्विजातीनामात्मनश्च गुरोस्तथा
एकभावेन कर्तव्यं शेषं भावद्वयाश्रितैः [63]

One should perform whole heartedly (honestly),
only the actions related to gods, Brahmins, Self and the Guru.
Rest of the actions can be performed with duplicity.

एको भावः सदा शस्तो यतीनां भावितात्मनां
श्रीलुब्धानां न लोकानां विशेषेण महीभृतां [64]

Recluses and realized persons have to remain always honest.
Those greedy after wealth especially kings need not be like that.

Taking recourse to the policy of duplicity, you can live at your own residence. Moreover, by taking advantage of the greed of the enemy, you can also drive him away. Another thing is that you can find out his weak points and destroy him also.”

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby abhik » 26 Oct 2017 18:25

@TKiran, not sure if you are acquainted with the term 'screwdrivergiri' but no ToT means it will not be produced in India.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby TKiran » 26 Oct 2017 18:54

Abhik sir, you are going into details, I can also give detailed reply, which may be "something is better than nothing".

But the point I was trying to emphasize is that we should frame policies unapologetically to steal the technology, the methods or means are details. But when you have hesitation in adopting the strategy of DUPLICITY or DECEPTION in the first place, there's no point in discussing the tactics and details "how we may fail, because they're smarter, they will not allow such things, they will keep their servers in US, they will give only outdated technology and all sorts of negative thinking that we will not achieve anything by alignment or alliance etc" dilemma.

Once we have determined that something is needed for the country and we are being denied, and we are unapologetic about "Deception" in such cases, we can certainly formulate tactics to achieve that "thing".

It's not only the technology, the methods and processes and management of time-bound targets, etc are also important. We are still realing from the technology denial since 1998 sanctions of USA (through UN). So it's payback time for India to USA.

Be unapologetic about "Deception". Lure USA, accept all the conditions, subotage while everything looks hunky dory.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48085
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 26 Oct 2017 19:29

TKiran, You are dealing with a dharmic strategy when the other side is not.
Its sure fire setup to failure.

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby TKiran » 26 Oct 2017 21:43

Ramana sir, I am puzzled now.

Kauravas were adharmic, Pandavas were dharmik. eventhough, Pandavas had only 7akshouhinis, whereas Kauravas had 11 akshouhinis, Pandavas only won.

What I mean to say is, "ashvathama hatah kunjarah" is the way to fight the adharmic forces.

Do you have a different perspective??

To give a more appropriate analogy, to fight a common enemy (China), we(India and USA) should not hesitate to align.

When Duryodhan was kidnapped by Gandharva (common enemy to Kauravas and Pandavas), dharmaraja sends Arjuna to rescue Duryodhan during Aranya parva, saying "shatroonaam vayam panchottara shatham". (We are 105, when it comes to our enemies)
Last edited by TKiran on 26 Oct 2017 22:02, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby periaswamy » 26 Oct 2017 21:49

TKiran: Do you have a different perspective??


I am not sure you have understood the core meaning of that whole dialoguing between Krishna and Arjuna given your point of view.

Regardless, The question really is: if it is a fight for survival (and to flourish) in a hostile environment, do you think you prefer clutching your dharmic principles right up to the point where your adversaries enslave or kill you, or do you want to be the last one standing? If your answer is the former, then your adversaries will have to pry your dharmic principles out of your cold dead fingers after they kill you. If it is the latter, viewing reality in a game-theoretic manner, which requires flexibility in beliefs and principles, is liable to give better results on the average.

BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby BSR Murthy » 27 Oct 2017 05:26

Leaked document shows Tillerson power play
Looks like Tillerson is basically sidelining career diplomats/bureaucrats at the State. It could be good for India and the world provided Trump and Tillerson are advancing an agenda that is different from the deep state's.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Oct 2017 05:54

If tillerson has any sense, which I think he does, he will sweep the SDOTUS clear of all Victorial Neuland/HiC/Jokerry/MohtermaAbedin/neocon contamination. Or he's done for, with all the knives out there.

Karma did in khobragade, and karma is now coming around to her oppressors. The pompous prosecutor is gone. Abedin is gone. HiC is gone. Is Neuland gone?

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20400
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Prem » 27 Oct 2017 06:30

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/26/sta ... ns-office/
State Department Scraps Sanctions Office

he State Department shuttered an office that oversees sanctions policy, even as the Donald Trump administration faces criticism from lawmakers over its handling of new economic penalties against Russia.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson eliminated the Coordinator for Sanctions Policy office, which had been led by a veteran ambassador-rank diplomat with at least five staff, as part of an overhaul of the department, former diplomats and congressional sources told Foreign Policy.The sanctions office was dissolved after the administration missed a key Oct. 1 deadline to implement new penalties against Russia adopted by Congress in August. The move has reinforced concerns among both Democratic and Republican lawmakers that the Trump White House is mismanaging the State Department and undercutting the role of U.S. diplomacy.The “elimination of the sanctions coordinator appears to be part of the larger reorganization debacle underway at the State Department,” said Sean Bartlett, spokesman for Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Both Cardin and Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had blasted the administration over its failure to implement new sanctions against Russia enacted by Congress. After blowing past the Oct. 1 deadline, the administration informed Corker on Thursday that it would finally issue guidance for the measures, identifying entities linked to Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Oct 2017 06:35

Totally deliberate, IMO. The debacle is for the Neuland-HiC mafia. A guy who built his career making billions drilling oil in strange parts of the globe, does not need lessons from foreign policy weanies on how to organize an office.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 27 Oct 2017 09:37

Excerpt from an article titled “U.S. Secretary Of State Rex Tillerson May Want To Court India But What Does Donald Trump Want?” in Forbes by Leeza Mangaldas who describes herself as a “TV presenter and writer based in Mumbai”.

Setting aside a Trump vs Tillerson debate on who is better for India, she is right in pointing out that recent comments by the US are not supportive of India’s position on Mohammadden Terrorism which the US proclaims it fully shares.

Let me hope that our Government , as hitherto, will not permit India to be gulled by smooth talking snake oil salesmen from the US touting an Indo-US relationship .that does not fully demonstrate respect for India’s concerns on cross border Mohammadden Terrorism emanating from the machinations of the Punjabi Military dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Oct 26, 2017 @ 09:25

U.S. Secretary Of State Rex Tillerson May Want To Court India But What Does Donald Trump Want?

……………………… Just days before his India visit, in a speech at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tillerson shared his vision of a crucial role for India in maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region, against the backdrop the “less responsible” rise of China, and terrorism in Pakistan. ………………….

In fact, even while Tillerson has been reassuring India, Trump and some of his other officials have been courting its rivals.

{Suhasini} Haider noted as an example of this confusion in messaging, the recent Boyle-Coleman hostage release incident, that led to a multitude of statements on the U.S.’s relationship with Pakistan.

Just a few days before the release, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis and chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford had stated that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has clear links to terror groups and suggested that the U.S.'s partnership with Pakistan was all but over.

After the release, President Trump tweeted that he was starting to “develop a much better relationship with Pakistan and its leaders.” His Chief of Staff John Kelly then referred to Pakistan as a “great partner,” while Tillerson has maintained that Pakistan is critical to regional stability.

Meanwhile, the hostage Coleman herself refuted Pakistan’s claim that she and her family had been rescued while being transported from Afghanistan -- stating that they were in captivity in Pakistan, and had been for at least a year before their release -- a revelation which calls into question Trump’s words of praise for the country. ………………………..

New Delhi must bare {Sic} this is mind while evaluating Tillerson’s exuberant projections of an Indo-U.S. partnership. partnership. Tillerson may want to be friends, but what does Trump want?


From Forbes:

U.S. Secretary Of State Rex Tillerson May Want To Court India But What Does Donald Trump Want?

TKiran
BRFite
Posts: 721
Joined: 13 Dec 2009 00:22

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby TKiran » 27 Oct 2017 09:46

periaswamy wrote:
TKiran: Do you have a different perspective??


I am not sure you have understood the core meaning of that whole dialoguing between Krishna and Arjuna given your point of view.

Regardless, The question really is: if it is a fight for survival (and to flourish) in a hostile environment, do you think you prefer clutching your dharmic principles right up to the point where your adversaries enslave or kill you, or do you want to be the last one standing? If your answer is the former, then your adversaries will have to pry your dharmic principles out of your cold dead fingers after they kill you. If it is the latter, viewing reality in a game-theoretic manner, which requires flexibility in beliefs and principles, is liable to give better results on the average.

Periaswamy, you have a very wrong understanding of Dharma. Dharma is not a set of rigid rules you need to follow meticulously. Dharma is different for Statecraft. As I said previously, "Deception" is wrong in personal or professional life., But in statecraft, it's a very powerful tool and we should be unapologetic using it when dealing with our defence.

Perhaps, you didn't read my post correctly, or you have a bias that our Dharma traditions are outdated hence it should be discarded. Or you may be thinking that 'Sanatana Dharma' doesn't have the modern practices of "peer review" etc, hence not scientific.

I can give you one example of PV Narasimha Rao, in 1991, how he got IMF loan and defused Indian balance of payment crisis, which I heard from a reliable source guy in 2004. Every one knows what is there in the public domain., But what went behind the scenes was horrible to say the least, PVN used the principles of Panchatantra mitralabha, mitrabedha, sandhi. He literally shoved his middle finger into financial institutions of mighty USA (perhaps at that time, those were the most powerful in the unipolar world), which was brewing brewing and brewing till the East Asia currency crisis in 1996. It's a gripping story of how Dharma is timeless and scientific and can predict the future more accurate than any statistical tools available today. Simple thumb rules of statecraft.
Last edited by TKiran on 27 Oct 2017 10:29, edited 1 time in total.

periaswamy
BRFite
Posts: 422
Joined: 07 Jul 2017 20:50

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby periaswamy » 27 Oct 2017 09:52

Periaswamy, you have a very wrong understanding of Dharma. Dharma is not a set of rigid rules you need to follow meticulously. Dharma is different for Statecraft. As I said previously, "Deception" is wrong in personal or professional life., But in statecraft, it's a very powerful tool and we should be unapologetic using it when dealing with our defence.


Yes, I have not said otherwise. Your thinking suggests that you operate via analogies, rather than living the moment and seeing what you have to work with, and what you need to do. operating via analogies, i.e., someone else's experience in a reality different from yours, is not the right way to look at things. It is a recipe for bad judgement.

It's a gripping story of how Dharma is timeless and scientific and can predict the future more accurate than any statistical tools available today. Simple thumb rules of statecraft.


perhaps you should quit your "word thinking" and stop associating concepts with words that have different meanings to different people.

The basic point here is that, actions should be based on observation and a clear understanding of reality, and an understanding of who your enemies are, and an understanding of the game and its players. It does not matter if you call this mode of operation as "dharma" or "sharma". Your reactions must be based on a clear understanding of your reality and the paths that will lead to survival.

BSR Murthy
BRFite
Posts: 140
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 12:31
Location: Texas

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby BSR Murthy » 27 Oct 2017 10:28

UlanBatori wrote:If tillerson has any sense, which I think he does, he will sweep the SDOTUS clear of all Victorial Neuland/HiC/Jokerry/MohtermaAbedin/neocon contamination. Or he's done for, with all the knives out there.

Karma did in khobragade, and karma is now coming around to her oppressors. The pompous prosecutor is gone. Abedin is gone. HiC is gone. Is Neuland gone?

Yup. Victoria "Eff the EU" Nuland is gone. But, the Kagan family is very much active in regrouping the neocons:
The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2939
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Dipanker » 27 Oct 2017 21:04

Despite Tillerson, US won’t abandon Pakistan for India

It has become commonplace to caution American policymakers against irrational exuberance when dealing with India: Keep expectations low (conventional wisdom goes) and you won’t be disappointed. In the wake of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to New Delhi this week, perhaps the same advice could be directed to India’s leadership. Despite warm welcome by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the pleasantries at Gandhi Smriti, and the promises of “an even brighter future,” don’t expect a radical change in US policy.


Jonah Blank, author of ‘Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God: Retracing the Ramayana Through India,’ is a senior political scientist at the US think-tank, RAND Corporation. He tweets @JonahBlank

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4510
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby SBajwa » 27 Oct 2017 21:58


SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4510
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby SBajwa » 27 Oct 2017 23:00


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48085
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 27 Oct 2017 23:23

Ok Enough OT
Tkiran stop.
Sbajwa also stop.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 28 Oct 2017 18:46

arun wrote:


So much for the visit of US secretary of State Rex Tillerson's visit to India. US speaks with perfidious forked tongue on Mohammadden Terrorism being a global problem and winks and nods at the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s support of Pakistan based Mohammadden Terror outfits that target India.

Foreign Minister of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Khawaja Asif, says that UN designated Mohammadden Terrorism outfit Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s name was not on the list of 75 militants the US had handed over to the Islamic Republic.

It will be interesting to know if other Pakistan based Mohammadden Terrorists that are focussed on targeting India such as Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and its boss Syed Salahuddin alias Mohammad Yusuf Shah are on the US list:

Hafiz Saeed's name not on list of 75 militants handed over by US: Khawaja Asif


At Press Availability of US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson at Geneva on October 26, 2017 a direct question by a journalist on the claim of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan that UN Designated Mohammadden Terrorist Hafiz Sayed is not on the list of terrorists handed over by the US and against whom the US expects the Islamic Republic to take action, is evaded by US secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Also evaded is the question of the Pakistan claim that no citizens of the Islamic Republic was on the US list of Mohammadden Terrorists.

Strong grounds now to conclude that the US is perfidiously walking back on the claim that it is against all Mohammadden Terrorism, especially that which emanates from the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan and targets India.

QUESTION: Sir, talk about your meeting with the Pakistanis. Their official news agency has talked about how the United States has presented them with a list of 75 terrorists that the Pakistanis claim they’re – that none of them are Pakistanis, that the head of Lashkar-e Tayyiba is not on that list, and that they provided you with a list of 100 terrorists that they would like the United States to go after. Could you talk about what you specifically laid out for them when you talked to them the other day?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think what you just described is a very healthy exchange of information on terrorists, which is what we really hope to achieve with Pakistan. We have provided them specific asks, beyond just names of individuals. We’ve provided them specific asks. But we’ve also invited greater sharing from them as well. So we expect to receive information from them that will be useful.

And the specific location on any given day of where certain individuals or certain cells may be located – they do move around. As you know, the Pakistan-Afghan border is quite porous; in fact, it’s ill-defined. And so we’re less concerned about are they in Pakistani territory, in Afghanistan territory, or – as we are obtaining information so that we can eliminate them.


A couple of other questions and the resulting blather from US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Note how Tillerson first avoided the question on what the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan had to say on Indo-US relations and when pressed seemed to indicate that the US would “mediate” on Indo-Pakistan relations, an action that is unacceptable to us Indian’s by saying “We’re also here to talk about how can we lower the tensions on the border with India, and there are legitimate concerns on both sides of that border as well “:

QUESTION: I’ll stay on the Pakistan theme. The reaction that we are reading from Pakistan today is that your visit did not go over well, that there was a sense that you were lecturing Islamabad from Delhi and from Kabul. I want to ask you if you think – what practically you think you’ve accomplished that you would not have accomplished without being there.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I would not have characterized my direct discussions with them as lecturing at all. It was a very good and open exchange. In fact, we probably listened 80 percent of the time and we talked 20 percent. And it was important to me, because I have not engaged with Pakistani leadership previously. And so my objective was to listen a lot, to hear their perspective.

We put our points forward. We put our expectations forward in no uncertain terms. There has been significant engagement prior to my visit, and there’ll be further engagement in the future, as we work through how we want to, as I said, exchange information and achieve the objective of eliminating these terrorist organizations, wherever they may be located. We had – it was very frank, very candid. We had the joint meeting with Prime Minister Abbasi and the full leadership team. And then I had a second meeting with Army General Bajwa and a couple of his close advisers, so we could have a more thorough discussion about some of the specifics.

But I think it was a very open, candid, and frank exchange, and it’s – there’s nothing to be achieved by lecturing, but we should be very clear about expectations and what we’re asking. And either people will step up and meet those expectations or they won’t. We’re going to chart our course consistent with what Pakistan not just says they do but what they actually do.


QUESTION: Can I go back to Pakistan for a second? Is it accurate to say that the message you received from the Pakistanis was, “We will not be coerced,” that they delivered to you a message of defiance in the face of the U.S. trying to pressure them? And did – that’s kind of one question. And the second question is: Did they respond at all to you about the U.S.’s strategy of deepening relations with India?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, in answer to your first question, that would be a complete mischaracterization of the meeting.

QUESTION: Okay, okay.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: It was a very open, frank conversation that began with a retracing of the history between the U.S. and Pakistan, which, by and large, has been a very, very positive history. We’ve had a deterioration in that relationship over the last 10 years, but prior to that we had very strong relations with Pakistan. Throughout the Cold War to the post-Cold War, the post-9/11, they were a tremendous partner in the post-9/11 years in terms of helping us apprehend a number of the individuals that were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

So what’s happened has happened more recently, and I think what was important to me is that let’s reconnect and remember that it hasn’t always been this way. So there was no lecturing and there was no lecturing of them back to me either. I view it as a respectful relationship. We have some very legitimate asks, some very legitimate concerns that we need their help addressing. I said to them, “You can do it or you can decide not to do it. And if you decide you don’t want to do it, just let us know. We’ll adjust our plans accordingly and we’ll deal with it ourselves.”

And it’s not – that’s not a threat. It’s just a matter of fact. We have to deal with the conditions on the ground. And as you know, the entire South Asia strategy is a conditions-based strategy, and so the same message to Pakistan was: “Here’s what we need for Pakistan to do. We’re asking you to do this; we’re not demanding anything. You’re a sovereign country. You’ll decide what you want to do, but understand this is what we think is necessary. And if you don’t want to do that, don’t feel you can do it, we’ll adjust our tactics and our strategies to achieve the same objective a different way.”

QUESTION: And what was their response?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: I think they share the same concern we have about the presence of terrorism. They are – they have been victims of terrorism. The Pakistanis have suffered significant losses fighting terrorism themselves. My conversation with them was about what we feel is important for Pakistan’s future stability. And yes, what they can do will have an important impact on creating conditions for reconciliation and peace talks in Afghanistan, but it’s not just about Afghanistan. It’s about our concern for Pakistan’s long-term stability as well.

MODERATOR: Gardiner.

]b]QUESTION[/b]: And the India question – and the India question, whether that came up, the deeper relationship with India.

SECRETARY TILLERSON: There was not a lot of discussion about that, other than they clearly have their differences with India, they have their concerns along their border with India. I made the observation to them, “You have two very troubled borders. You have one in Afghanistan, you have one with India,” and that we’re willing to help on both of those borders, and we’re not just here to talk about the situation on the Afghan border. We’re also here to talk about how can we lower the tensions on the border with India, and there are legitimate concerns on both sides of that border as well.


From the US State Department website:

Clicky

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9268
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby arun » 28 Oct 2017 19:41

Oct 27 briefing by the US Acting Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs and Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Alice G. Wells.

On India, there – this was an extremely friendly, very wide-ranging dialogue on how we can partner together on the strategic relationship that we think is going to define the rest of the 21st century. And if you saw the Secretary’s speech at CSIS, it was about the next 100 years in this very important relationship. So there was both the bilateral component to the visit, but also about how two countries with shared values – a respect for democracy, transparency, freedom of navigation, for economic development – how we can inculcate these values in the broader Indo-Pacific region, working with important partners like Japan and Australia. And I would just note, I thought the visit to Gandhi Smriti was very moving, and again, really was a touchstone for what unites – that this relationship is very much one built on values.

The Secretary laid out a lot of ambitions for the relationship. We want to build on the June visit by Prime Minister Modi with the President, and just say, “How do we take this relationship to the next level?” Obviously, we’d like to deepen the military-to-military cooperation that has moved very quickly; over the last decade we’ve gone from zero in defense sales to 15 billion in defense sales. There are important defense agreements that we can move forward on that will make it easier for us to share classified data and that will facilitate sales like the F-16 or the F-18 and will help create a defense technology partnership, which is what India is seeking, but which will also create jobs for Americans at home.

We’d like to expand the bilateral trade and investment dimension of the relationship. We have about 115 billion in trade, 40 billion in bilateral investment. This week we have two important meetings going on, the Trade Policy Forum and the commercial dialogue, done by both Commerce and USTR. But we see this as a two-way street. Later this month the Indian firm Mahindra is opening an auto plant in Michigan. We’ve seen purchases of Boeing aircraft, all of which produce, again, thousands of jobs for American citizens. And then later in November we’ll have the Global Entrepreneurship Summit headed by Ivanka Trump, which is going to bring together 1,300 entrepreneurs and investors and I think really demonstrate the entrepreneurial spirit of the relationship.

Finally, of course, the Secretary focused on how we can promote regional stability. In the South Asia strategy, we’ve given an important role to India on helping to stabilize Afghanistan economically and to build its human resource capacity. Since 2001, India has invested $2 billion in Afghanistan. They’ve pledged another 1 billion by 2020. And if you look at their projects, which are in like 31 provinces – they’re dams, drinking water, infrastructure; it’s training for government officials, for students – all of these projects have been very well received. They’re constructive, and I think it’s demonstrated that India is an important and valuable partner. At the same time, of course, we’ve made it clear to everyone that we would never tolerate anyone’s soil being used against the other. Finally, on the fight against terrorism, building on the joint designation we did of Harakat ul-Mujahidin during Prime Minister Modi’s visit, we’re looking forward to working with the India – with the Indians on identifying additional designations that we should pursue together.

So a very comprehensive, very deep visit. The Secretary had a chance to meet with some of the key business leaders, representatives of U.S. firms. This is a dynamic relationship with really the – we haven’t seen – begun to see the potential yet, so a lot of excitement driving that visit. I’ll leave it at that.


Lots of question and answers on the US plan to work with India along with Japan and Australia in the Indo-Pacific region ie: so called Quadrilateral to tame the Peoples Republic of China’s belligerence:

QUESTION: Okay. I’m Lalit Jha with PTI, Press Trust of India. The Japanese foreign minister has said he’s proposing a strategic dialogue between India, U.S., Japan, and Australia. What is the U.S. view on that? Have they reached out to you?

And in India, was the Rohingya issue – did it come up during the talks with the Indians?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: The quadrilateral that the Japanese foreign minister discussed would be building on what has been a very productive trilateral that we have with India and Japan, and if you look at the largest military exercise that we do, Malabar, Japan is a part of that exercise. As we explore ways to deepen and try to inculcate some of the values – freedom of navigation, maritime security, humanitarian assistance, disaster response, transparency – obviously, Australia would be a natural partner in that effort as well. We’re looking at a working-level quadrilateral meeting in the near term, but again, I think the idea is how do we bring together countries that share these same values to reinforce these values in the global architecture.


QUESTION: The quadrilateral, where is that at the moment? Was there discussion on that in Delhi? And obviously, in the past, China has reacted quite negatively to this concept and considers it a part of a plan to sort of surround it. And how do you respond to Chinese concerns about such a cooperative arrangement?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: Well, I think it’s hard to see a meeting of diplomats from four countries as a plan to contain China. I think it’s a natural expression and convergence of interests between democratic countries in the Indo-Pacific region and it’s a natural stepping stone from the very productive trilateral conversations, exercises, and cooperation that we’ve seen between India, Japan, and the United States. As – I think that the – countries that share values have an opportunity to provide alternatives to countries in the region who are seeking needed investment in their infrastructure and in their economic development, and so making sure that we coordinate our initiatives and provide these countries with alternatives that don’t include predatory financing or unsustainable debt, that would certainly be on the agenda.

I feel like he’s been holding up his hand for a very long time.


QUESTION: Nike Ching with the Voice of America. So does United States has the Chinese-led AIIB, Asia Infrastructure and Investment Bank, in mind when Secretary Tillerson was talking about having an alternative financing mechanism in South Asia?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: As Secretary of Defense Mattis said, I think it was two weeks ago, there are many belts and many roads. And so what does the U.S. have to offer? What does the U.S., Japan, Australia, other countries, India, other countries that share the values of transparency, sustainable debt, responsible development – what do we have to offer. So this is not to counter something; it is a positive vision of what important democracies in the Indo-Pacific region should be doing and how we can work better together.

The example that I always like to give is the Millennium Challenge Corporation’s $680 million project in Nepal, 130 million of which is funded by the Government of Nepal, the rest by MCC, which is building energy transmission lines to India along with roads that’s going to allow Nepal, over the course of the next seven years to actually be an energy exporter, but building connectivity between India and Nepal in a very responsible fashion, increasing regional connectivity. How do we work with one another, the countries of the region, to make sure that our development projects are mutually reinforcing, and how do we build on connectivity so that there is an alternative and very sustainable initiative that can address legitimate development needs of these countries?


QUESTION: My name is Kenichi from NHK. Regarding the U.S.-Japan-India-Australia Quadrilateral Working-Level Meeting, you said the near future. But do you have any date already set? And also may I ask which level you are referring to?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: I think I’m working level. (Laughter.) So I’d point the finger at me. I don’t mean to hedge on your question; I’ve just come back from travel. I don’t know if the specific date and time has been set yet, but certainly the expectation is that we would like to move forward with, at my level, a discussion between the four countries.

MS NAUERT: Thank --

QUESTION: Was there any meeting in Delhi on that?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Was there any quad meeting in Delhi?

MS NAUERT: Was there a quad meeting in Delhi?

AMBASSADOR WELLS: Mm-hmm, yeah – no.


From the US State Department website:

Clicky

CRamS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6086
Joined: 07 Oct 2006 20:54
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby CRamS » 28 Oct 2017 21:13



Good sober analysis. BTW, I have corresponded with this guy. He is one of those American white guys who has deep, deep knowledge Hindu philosophy, scriptures etc.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 525
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby krishna_krishna » 28 Oct 2017 22:18

All this H1B scrutiny is just hot gas only , nothing new. Due to favorable immigration policies of Canada new amazon HQ with 9000+ eng jobs could be in Canadian cities, you will see more and more of this in coming years from big five of IT world :
http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-h ... ada-2017-9

On a separate note Rdevji awesome as usual, my pranams to you Ramana for guessing the massa game , I still remember your post"Only thing made British raj was India".

Discussion should be around what can we do to make what chins and porkis did to get away unscathed from massa hug.

srinebula
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 12 Oct 2016 13:36

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby srinebula » 28 Oct 2017 22:50

chetak wrote:Also, there is a scary and really empowered angel who watches over Modi and whose loyalties to Modi are unquestionable.


Sir, any clues as to who this empowered angel is?

Dipanker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2939
Joined: 14 May 2002 11:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Dipanker » 28 Oct 2017 23:26

H-1B visa issue raised with US 'very strongly', says Suresh Prabhu

NEW DELHI: Amid the tightening of visa norms in the US, India has "very strongly" raised the issue of H-1B and L1 visas asserting that the American economy has been immensely benefited by the Indian IT professionals.

Union Minister Suresh Prabhu after the first US-India bilateral Trade Policy Forum (TPF) under the Trump administration, which was also attended by US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, said, "We raised very strongly the issue of Indian professionals and H-1B and L1 visa issues."

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1250
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby schinnas » 29 Oct 2017 00:36

srinebula wrote:
chetak wrote:Also, there is a scary and really empowered angel who watches over Modi and whose loyalties to Modi are unquestionable.


Sir, any clues as to who this empowered angel is?


It may fly like a dove.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15940
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 29 Oct 2017 12:56

srinebula wrote:
chetak wrote:Also, there is a scary and really empowered angel who watches over Modi and whose loyalties to Modi are unquestionable.


Sir, any clues as to who this empowered angel is?


I was referring to AS

srinebula
BRFite
Posts: 117
Joined: 12 Oct 2016 13:36

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby srinebula » 29 Oct 2017 13:07

chetak wrote:
srinebula wrote:
Sir, any clues as to who this empowered angel is?


I was referring to AS

Thanks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17809
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Philip » 29 Oct 2017 14:31

Remember Gromyko's crisp answer to a US ambassador who gushed how he loved Russian culture,etc. and hoped for better ties. The legendary Sov. FM said he couldn't care a sh*t what the ambassador was thought but wanted to know exactly what America thought!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48085
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2017 00:42

I am wondering if we need a thread to discuss JFK files or lump it in the Wikileaks thread.
My first inclination is to have a separate thread as its not a leak and could be more like understanding US in 1962 thread.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Oct 2017 00:56

Why not have a Free Biscuits thread? Can enjoy discussing current neuj as well. :LOL

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9854
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby A_Gupta » 31 Oct 2017 03:08

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/05/dec ... -politics/
Paul Manafort and J&K
(PS: with friends like these, who needs enemies?)
In the early 1990s, Manafort’s lobbying firm, Black, Manafort, Stone, and Kelly, worked for the Kashmiri American Council, a group that tried to influence U.S. policy toward the disputed territory of Kashmir. Later, the group, led by Kashmiri native Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, was proven to be a front for Pakistan’s intelligence agency in Washington. The KAC hired Manafort in October 1990, just months after its founding.

Two decades later, the Department of Justice charged and convicted Fai of conspiring to secretly act as an agent of the Pakistani government in the U.S., the result of a long-running investigation. The reason: Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s intelligence agency, had been secretly funding and directing the KAC’s work in violation of federal law since its inception.

Over the course of five years, Manafort’s lobbying firm took in $700,000 from the KAC to set up the operation. It was just a fraction of the $3.5 million Fai admitted the KAC received from the Pakistani government between 1990 and 2011, but it came at a crucial time for the organization.

The FBI launched an investigation into Fai in 2005, following years of allegations from the Indian press that the KAC, which advocated for Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, was a front for the Pakistani government. The investigation started with a tip from a confidential informant that Fai and an associate in Pakistan, Zaheer Ahmad, were ISI agents, according to an FBI affidavit. In July 2011, the Justice Department charged Fai and Ahmad with conspiracy to act as agents of the Pakistani government in the U.S. without disclosing their affiliation as required by U.S. law. In December of that year, Fai pleaded guilty to conspiracy and related tax violations. (Ahmad was not arrested when the charges were brought because he was in Pakistan, where he died in October 2011.)

The investigation unveiled an elaborate scheme on the part of the Pakistani government to influence Washington policymakers while hiding behind a seemingly innocuous nonprofit organization. Under U.S. law, an organization doing the bidding of a foreign government must register as a foreign agent. But, as the KAC learned, it was possible to circumvent the rules by hiding behind donors seemingly sympathetic to the organization’s mission. The money could be used to make campaign contributions to lawmakers who, in return, would make public statements about Pakistan’s rightful claim to Kashmir. And who better to help the KAC make inroads with members of Congress than Manafort, a longtime lobbyist and darling of the Republican Party. (Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican who represented Indiana’s 5th District from 1983 to 2013, was the KAC’s chief supporter in Congress and received at least $10,000 in contributions from Fai, according to Politico.)

As KAC director, Fai submitted annual budget requests to the government of Pakistan, which partially funded Fai’s work through money delivered to Ahmad, who arranged for the funds to be delivered to Fai through a network of straw donors in the U.S., according to court documents. The KAC provided the straw donors with letters documenting that the transfers were tax deductible. At no point did Fai register his group as a foreign agent of Pakistan, as required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, nor did he disclose to the IRS that the money the KAC received from the donors actually came from Pakistani officials.

The reporting on Manafort’s work on Kashmir has focused on the identity of the client. But setting that aside and foregrounding the operation itself reveals something simpler: The use of a nonprofit to funnel foreign money into Washington.

In 1994, Manafort and his coworker, K. Riva Levinson traveled to Kashmir, arriving in India on tourist visas with no indication that they worked for the KAC. The Indian government accused them of posing as CNN journalists while gathering footage in the Himalayan region and notified CNN’s Atlanta headquarters. Manafort and Levinson denied the accusations, and a colleague said their footage was never used, according to the Associated Press. Levinson, who declined to be interviewed for this story, described Manafort as “arrogant, narcissistic, egotistical, brilliant” in her 2016 memoir, “Choosing the Hero: My Improbable Journey and the Rise of Africa’s First Woman President.”

“But it is Paul’s mercenary attitude that puts us at odds,” she wrote in her book.

Gordon D. Kromberg, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Fai’s case, told Yahoo News last year that Manafort’s knowledge, if any, of the source of Fai’s money was not part of the Justice Department’s investigation. (The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment.) In December 1995, the ISI officer responsible for handling Kashmiri affairs in the mid-1990s, Javeed Aziz Khan, criticized Fai for renewing a contract with a public relations firm without prior authorization from the ISI; at Fai’s sentencing hearing, Kromberg identified the firm as “Black, Manafort, and Stone,” according to court records.

Peter Kelly, a partner at the lobbying firm, confirmed to The Intercept that Manafort brought the KAC in as a client, but he said he does not know much about Manafort’s role with the group. “Frankly I never worked with Paul on it at all,” Kelly said. “We never communicated on it. I don’t think there was anything, frankly, unique about it.” He said he was unaware of the KAC’s connection to the ISI until The Intercept brought it to his attention.

But a former KAC employee said he does not think Fai could have come up with the operation to covertly use Pakistani funds to sway U.S. foreign policy without the firm’s help. “Manafort set it up,” speculated David Wolfe, who was the KAC’s chief government relations liaison from 2005 to 2009. “He found those loopholes, because people don’t look at nonprofits.”

Wolfe joined the KAC a decade after Manafort stopped providing services to the organization. He met Manafort a few times during his work at the KAC, he said, but was not aware at the time of what exactly Manafort’s role with the group had been. But when reports emerged in 2016 that Trump’s campaign manager was linked to a group that was acting on behalf of the ISI and that Manafort had also lobbied on behalf of Saudi Arabia in the 1980s, Wolfe said he started to connect the dots. “When you start putting the two together about what was going on with the Saudis with Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time of the ’80s, and what the KAC was taken down doing … it really all started to make a lot of sense,” Wolfe told The Intercept. Fai also has ties to Saudi Arabia dating back to the 1980s, and it was the Saudis who bankrolled his emigration to and education in the U.S., according to a 2011 ProPublica report.

During his tenure at the KAC, Wolfe was suspicious of large payments the group received without doing public fundraising in the U.S., and he said he could tell the scheme had been in place for some time, likely with some outside help. “He’s not that clever, which is I think probably why he got caught,” Wolfe said of Fai. He had questions but was not concerned enough to leave his job. “An organization that had that type of money that was coming in without doing any type of proactive fundraising is also a red flag — which I personally knew was a red flag — but I was in it to try to solve the Kashmir crisis,” Wolfe said. Eventually, the FBI contacted Wolfe and asked him to spy on his boss, which he did for about two years. (Both Fai and the FBI declined to comment for this story.)

FBI Special Agent Sarah Linden, who led the investigation into Fai, wrote in her affidavit in support of his arrest that “the KAC does receive some legitimate donations,” but the majority of its funds came from a small group of individuals closely associated with Ahmad, Fai’s accused co-conspirator. Court documents show that Fai eventually admitted to receiving money in sums ranging from $4,000 to $595,193 from the ISI between 1993 and 2011 through Ahmad and a series of middlemen.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48085
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2017 05:16

Looks like KAC set up by Paul Manafort was a prototype for his Ukrainian caper.

Ho come he was not indicted along with Fai for not registering as an agent?
Also could he be deep cover black ops guy who sets up lobbying operations for foreign countries in US?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests