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.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 29 Jul 2018 12:49

nvishal wrote:I will not fall for the above arbitrary arguments.

There is no such thing as an NSG waiver. You are either an NSG member or you are not. What the hell is an in-between (Mr. arre, im not member but I have been waived off only) ?

:facepalm:

Honestly, two minutes on Google would shown you the absurdity of your statement.

FYI, the NSG waiver enabled NSG members to engage in nuclear trade with India (subject to IAEA safeguards). It was not signed with India.

The text of the NSG waiver:

Nuclear Suppliers Group’s Statement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation with India
1. At the Extraordinary Plenary Meeting meeting on 6 September 2008 the Participating Governments of the Nuclear Suppliers Group decided that they:

a. Desire to contribute to the effectiveness and integrity of the global nonproliferation regime, and to the widest possible implementation of the provisions and objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;

b. Seek to avert the further spread of nuclear weapons;

c. Wish to pursue mechanisms to affect positively the nonproliferation commitments and actions of all states;

d. Seek to promote fundamental principles of safeguards and export controls for nuclear transfers for peaceful purposes; and

e. Note the energy needs of India.


2. Participating Governments have taken note of steps that India has voluntarily taken with respect to the following commitments and actions:

a. Deciding to separate civilian nuclear facilities in a phased manner and to file a declaration regarding its civilian nuclear facilities with the IAEA, in accordance with its Separation Plan (circulated as INFCIRC/731);

b. Concluding negotiations with the IAEA and obtaining approval by the Board of Governors on 1 August 2008 for an “Agreement between the Government of India and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities,” in accordance with IAEA standards, principles, and practices (including IAEA Board of Governors Document GOV/1621);

c. Committing to sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with respect to India’s civil nuclear facilities;

d. Refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread;

e. Instituting a national export control system capable of effectively controlling transfers of multilaterally controlled nuclear and nuclear-related material, equipment and technology;

f. Harmonizing its export control lists and guidelines with those of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and committing to adhere to the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines; and

g. Continuing its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, and its readiness to work with others towards the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.


3. Based on the commitments and actions mentioned above, as reiterated by India on September 5, 2008, and without prejudice to national positions thereon, Participating Governments have adopted and will implement the following policy on civil nuclear cooperation by Participating Governments with the IAEA-safeguarded Indian civil nuclear program:

a. Notwithstanding paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) of INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, Participating Governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA safeguarded civil nuclear facilities, provided that the transfer satisfies all other provisions of INFCIRC/254/Part 1, as revised, and provided that transfers of sensitive exports remain subject to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Guidelines.

b. Notwithstanding paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2, Participating Governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software, and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA safeguarded civil nuclear facilities, provided that the transfer satisfies all other provisions of INFCIRC/254/Part 2, as revised.

c. At each Plenary, Participating Governments shall notify each other of approved transfers to India of Annex A and B items listed in INFCIRC/254/Part 1, as revised. Participating Governments are also invited to exchange information, including about their own bilateral agreements with India.

d. With a view to intensification of dialogue and cooperation with India, the Chairman is requested to confer and consult with India and keep the Plenary informed of these consultations.

e. Participating Governments will maintain contact and consult through regular channels, including the Consultative Group and Plenary, for the purpose of considering matters connected with the implementation of all aspects of this Statement taking into account relevant international commitments or bilateral agreements with India. In the event that one or more Participating Governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, Participating Governments will meet, and then act in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Guidelines.

4. In order to facilitate India’s adherence to INFCIRC/254/Parts 1 and 2 and to remain current in its implementation of the Guidelines, the NSG Chair is requested to consult with India regarding changes to and implementation of the Guidelines and inform the Plenary of the outcome of the dialogue with India. Consultations with India regarding proposed amendments will facilitate their effective implementation by India.

5. Upon request by Participating Governments, the Chairman is requested to submit this Statement to the IAEA Director General with a request that it be circulated to all Member States.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby pankajs » 29 Jul 2018 13:17

A little reading would have saved much angst even if one hasen't followed the Nuclear deal religiously.

For a summary and exact sequencing ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2% ... _Agreement
The 123 Agreement signed between the United States of America and the Republic of India is known as the U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement or Indo-US nuclear deal.[1] The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005, joint statement by then Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and to place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.[2] This U.S.-India deal took more than three years to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, including amendment of U.S. domestic law, especially the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,[3] a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, an India-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India's first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved,[4] and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.[5] After India brought this agreement into force, inspections began in a phased manner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.[6] The deal is seen as a watershed in U.S.-India relations and introduces a new aspect to international nonproliferation efforts.[7] On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,[8] after which the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.[9] The 48-nation NSG granted the waiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[10] The implementation of this waiver made India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[11]

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill to approve the deal on September 28, 2008.[12] Two days later, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country to have such an agreement with India.[13] On October 1, 2008 the U.S. Senate also approved the civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from—and sell them to—the United States.[14][15] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.[16] The agreement was signed by then Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on October 10.[17][18]

In 2015, the agreement had still not been fully implemented.[19][20][21]


kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 29 Jul 2018 13:52

Viv S wrote:
kshirin wrote:Posted in another thread "That is why I am asking, as a very concerned and agonised citizen, how are some of you sure we are not going to sign? It will put paid to indigenous industry, which is getting NO support. IIT (M) has come up with an indigenous chip, others have created high technology, but there are no takers as the major part of defence capital outlay has gone for imports.

COMCASA has little to do with 'indigenous chips' or indigenization in general. The monetary/industrial value of US/European comm equipment replaced by domestic alternatives, on specific platforms, is minimal, to say the least.

The implications of the agreement are primarily strategic, it being like the LEMOA, an enabler of interoperability with Western militaries (for better or worse).


These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 29 Jul 2018 14:26

kshirin wrote:These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.

The agreement is being negotiated by the MoD and the MEA not by same unnamed lobby.

As for the supposed "1000 aircraft order", the India state isn't committed to buying anything. The govt is merely using purchase forecasts related to private commercial entities, for diplomatic PR.

Those planes would have been bought even if the govt made no statement on the matter. China's situation is entirely different - its aviation sector is dominated by state owned airlines and aircraft purchases are controlled by the state.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 29 Jul 2018 15:14

India, U.S.: The Two Countries Make Progress on Military Cooperation : Stratfor
Image

The word balance is a dirty word in geopolitics and many outlets avoid using it in their articles. But stratfor has been using it explicitly longer than I can remember. They explicitly write about the US balancing strategies around the world.

The Indian Express reported July 26 that the government in New Delhi has agreed to sign the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) with the United States

[...]

The United States has been working hard to elevate the U.S.-India relationship, particularly as Washington looks to use New Delhi as a natural partner to balance China's rise and help secure U.S. interests in the Indian Ocean region. (The americans feel that china expanding in the indian ocean will pose a treat to the future of Diego Garcia and that china could threaten the shipping lanes in these waters fueled by US dollar. The USPACOM is tasked with providing security to these lanes)

[...]

The Indian government harbored ... doubts over signing COMCASA because ... the agreement would give the United States too much visibility into Indian encrypted military communications (The existing indian communication networks are secure but a long inspection of source and destination pings will reveal tactical strategy)

[...]

In 2016, the two countries signed ... the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement. With the ratification of COMCASA seemingly imminent, that leaves just one more foundational agreement to sign — the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement — out of the three that the United States traditionally requires of non-allied countries to enhance military cooperation and interoperability.


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

Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger who has experience in engaging with russia, india and china in the 1971 war gave a very realpolitik answer.

The former secretary of state—who famously engineered the tactic of establishing diplomatic relations with China (In jan 72 - a months after 71 war) in order to isolate the Soviet Union—pitched ... the potential strategy ... (that) ... would use closer relations with Russia, along with other countries in the region, to box in China’s growing power and influence.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 29 Jul 2018 18:47

Viv S wrote:
kshirin wrote:These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.

The agreement is being negotiated by the MoD and the MEA not by same unnamed lobby.

As for the supposed "1000 aircraft order", the India state isn't committed to buying anything. The govt is merely using purchase forecasts related to private commercial entities, for diplomatic PR.

Those planes would have been bought even if the govt made no statement on the matter. China's situation is entirely different - its aviation sector is dominated by state owned airlines and aircraft purchases are controlled by the state.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 29 Jul 2018 18:48

I see you justify everything the import lobby does. And I have first hand knowledge of this unnamed lobby. Am not inventing anything.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 29 Jul 2018 18:52

kshirin wrote:
Viv S wrote:COMCASA has little to do with 'indigenous chips' or indigenization in general. The monetary/industrial value of US/European comm equipment replaced by domestic alternatives, on specific platforms, is minimal, to say the least.

The implications of the agreement are primarily strategic, it being like the LEMOA, an enabler of interoperability with Western militaries (for better or worse).


These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... n=ETTWMain

Now we are importing missiles we already have. Dont tell me diversion of orders from the domestic defence industry is not linked to our ever fonder embrace of a foreign power.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 29 Jul 2018 18:53

It turns out that COMCASA equipment can be turned off remotely like GPS :((

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17651
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chetak » 29 Jul 2018 19:21

kshirin wrote:
kshirin wrote:
These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... n=ETTWMain

Now we are importing missiles we already have. Dont tell me diversion of orders from the domestic defence industry is not linked to our ever fonder embrace of a foreign power.


There is no fond embrace.

We are paying the price for the nuke deal and all that allegedly flowed from that. Since we did not follow through on the reactors which was their pound of flesh, they have extracted the price in a myriad of other ways, all beneficial to them and of marginal or of no use to us.

Now that the geopolitical situation has changed and the china factor is looming large on their horizon, docile Indian horses are either being harnessed again or repurposed as we still continue to pay the piper.

I wonder what sort of a deal with the devil was struck by MMS and the congis and why the details of that deal, like the questions being asked now in the rafale deal were not asked then by the BJP.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby pankajs » 29 Jul 2018 20:16

kshirin wrote:
kshirin wrote:
These things are related. The official lobby pushing for COMCASA is the same that runs down Indian industrial capabilities, PUBLICLY says Indian industry is rubbish, promotes unconditional purchases of 1000 aircraft without offsets, when all other countries and particularly China grew their indigenous industry through offsets and playing off suppliers against each other, and spends defence capital outlays on imports rather than encouraging domestic production, which without orders, cant flourish. And coincidentally the announcement of the 1000 aircraft buy came after the civil aviation ministry said it wanted to build aircraft domestically.



https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... n=ETTWMain

Now we are importing missiles we already have. Dont tell me diversion of orders from the domestic defence industry is not linked to our ever fonder embrace of a foreign power.

Which missile do we already have that we are substituting with imports and thus constitutes a diversion of orders from the domestic defense industry?

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 167
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Chinmay » 30 Jul 2018 07:38

pankajs wrote:Which missile do we already have that we are substituting with imports and thus constitutes a diversion of orders from the domestic defense industry?


I believe he's referring to the NASAMS deal being reported in the media. NASAMS overlaps with and is probably inferior to Akash and MRSAM, which are locally-made systems

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby pankajs » 30 Jul 2018 08:48

I think you misread my question. It was clear that NASAMS was at one end but what is it displacing at the other end? That was my question.

You think it is Akash and they are likely in the same category. Have you compared NASAMS with Akash? Perhaps NASAMS has some features that Akash still doesn't have and the powers that be deem as critical. Perhaps Delhi can live without those features.

BTW, the article referenced in the post has DRDO BMD system as a reference rather than Akash missile system.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 30 Jul 2018 13:23

kshirin wrote:I see you justify everything the import lobby does. And I have first hand knowledge of this unnamed lobby. Am not inventing anything.

Whether you are or not, fact remains the COMCASA as a agreement has only a marginal impact on indigenization effort.

The actual concerns with the agreement relate to impact on India's sovereignty & strategic independence. All issues that the govt is aware of and will be looking to address as they did with the LEMOA.

In either case, it makes little difference to the import lobby in general - though those favouring stronger ties with West would be favour it while those Russophiles would likely not.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby pankajs » 30 Jul 2018 19:31

US forming its own Belts and Roads forum! This should be of interest to India.

I don;t know what they intend to do but if they are really serious it would make sense to get strategic equity in and around IOR + ASEAN and ensure a big American share of the future growth in the region. If followed up and implemented properly it is likely to extend American hegemony.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 185059.cms
Trump administration set to announce major Indo-Pacific economic, developmental initiatives
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration is all set to roll out its major policy initiatives to address the massive infrastructural and energy needs of the Indo-Pacific region where India is seen as one of the anchor countries for greater connectivity and trade.

President Donald Trump has lined up his top Cabinet members - Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Energy Secretary Rick Perry - at US Chambers of Commerce which is hosting the first Indo-Pacific Business Forum meeting tomorrow.

The Forum will introduce the economic and commercial elements of the US' whole-of-government Indo-Pacific strategy and will include participation from senior administration officials, private sector and officials representing Indo-Pacific nations. The move comes nine months after the Trump administration openly spoke against the "predatory economic policies of an Asian giant" that threatens to eat into sovereignty of countries in Indo-Pacific, which has now emerged as a critical engine for growth.

Asian economies are now projected to create 50 per cent of global GDP in coming decades.

To realise that potential, countries of the Indo-Pacific will need to attract nearly $26 trillion in capital from the private sector and not the government to fund their energy and infrastructure needs, Nisha Desai Biswal, president of the US India Business Council (USIBC) said.

She said American companies will be critical players in both investment of capital and technology-building and infrastructure that the region requires.

"It's an event that brings together business, private sector and many of our partners from the region to have a conversation about how we can boost engagement investment across the Indo Pacific," Biswal, a key player in this initiative, told PTI ahead of the first Forum.

In addition to Pompeo, Ross and Perry envisioning the administration's policies for the Indo-Pacific region, other top administration officials include USAID Administrator Mark Green, OPIC President Ray Washburne, Acting Ex-Im Bank Chairman Jeffrey Gerrish, and US Chamber President and CEO Thomas J Donohue.

"All would be making announcements or sharing key investment opportunities that they are advancing in the Indo-Pacific region," Desai said.

The Indian Ambassador to the US, Navtej Singh Sarna, is among the few diplomats from the region who have been invited to speak during the forum event.

Senator Mark Warner, co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, would provide Congressional perspective on how it's important for the US public and private sector to be engaged in the Indo-Pacific region.

"What we hope that there will be a lot of outcomes that come from this Indo Pacific Business Forum," said Biswal, who served as the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia in the second term of the Obama administration.

"The forum will highlight US government initiatives to advance economic engagement in the region, particularly on key sectors including energy and infrastructure and the digital economy," State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said.

"The forum will also emphasise the importance of public-private partnerships, the benefits of transparency and good governance, and unlocking the power of markets for sustainable development, and the need for US collaboration with regional partners," she said.

Immediately after the event, Pompeo would leave for Singapore to attend the ASEAN ministerial.

He will have an opportunity to engage with his counterparts in the region and be able to take the business strategy and the economic strategy for the Indo-Pacific that has been articulated in this event and be able to engage with his counterparts from the region to further have conversations and discuss next steps, Biswal said.

.Responding to a question, the former State Department official asserted that the $26 trillion infrastructure gap across the Indo-Pacific region would come from the private sector and not from the government

"It's largely going to be how we leverage private investment into the region to build the infrastructure and the connectivity, whether it's the energy infrastructure or the transport infrastructure, or the digital infrastructure where India is such a leader for the region," Biswal said.

India is a critically important player in the entire scheme of things, she argued, noting that over the years it has emerged as a much more consequential player in Southeast Asia.[We will see]

"We really do see that India is one of the anchor countries in how we bring this whole region into greater connectivity and boost commerce and trade across the region," she said.

"We also know that in many areas, including in the digital economy, India is a leader and a pioneer that has a lot of knowledge to share. We know that India is a very important market for the countries of Asia and we want to support that greater collaboration in the region," she said.

"The US has a strong interest in also supporting all of the trading connectivity and being part of it," she said, adding that American business, technology and capital has an important role to play.

"So, the Chamber is hosting this gathering as an effort to really bring together different players and different perspectives and create some opportunities for those connections to be made," she said.

Biswal refuted the notion that the forum is intended against China. "I don't think that this is in any way intended to be a message to any particular country. This is meant to be an articulation of a robust policy and engagement from the US, from the government and from the business community and desire to do so in a way that is collaborative and consultative with our partners and counterparts across the region," she said.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 30 Jul 2018 19:51

Viv S wrote:
kshirin wrote:I see you justify everything the import lobby does. And I have first hand knowledge of this unnamed lobby. Am not inventing anything.

Whether you are or not, fact remains the COMCASA as a agreement has only a marginal impact on indigenization effort.

The actual concerns with the agreement relate to impact on India's sovereignty & strategic independence. All issues that the govt is aware of and will be looking to address as they did with the LEMOA.

In either case, it makes little difference to the import lobby in general - though those favouring stronger ties with West would be favour it while those Russophiles would likely not.


What have I said that you are calling me a Russophile? If anything I am an Indophile. Perhaps Indophiles are anathema to you I am all in favour of strong ties with the West ON AN EQUAL BASIS, with a strong backbone in terms of a high-tech domestic defence industry. And that is the only sustainable basis, which will earn India respect as we build up our real capabilities. Admin may please moderate. I dont have time or energy for this nonsense.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 30 Jul 2018 19:52

Some people on this Forum dont like strong backbones.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jul 2018 19:57

Viv S & kshirin, kindly address the posts, not the posters. no ad hominem attacks.
next time warnings will be issued.
- Rahul.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 30 Jul 2018 21:13

Kindly remove my ID from Bharat Rakshak. I thought this was a forum for genuine patriots. Clearly there is no room for me here. Thanks a lot.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 30 Jul 2018 21:45

kshirin wrote:What have I said that you are calling me a Russophile?

Where exactly did I call you a Russophile? It was a descriptive generalized statement about how the COMCASA would perceived by the lobbies - nothing to do with you personally (unless you see yourself as part of a lobby).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 30 Jul 2018 21:47

Rahul M wrote: Viv S & kshirin, kindly address the posts, not the posters. no ad hominem attacks.
next time warnings will be issued.
- Rahul.

There was no personal attack in my post whatsoever.
Last edited by Rahul M on 30 Jul 2018 22:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: warned and banned for a day

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5218
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Jul 2018 22:06

Viv S wrote:In either case, it makes little difference to the import lobby in general - though those favouring stronger ties with West would be favour it while those Russophiles would likely not.
Viv S: You may not have meant it as an attack but member kshirin took the Russophile comment as such. A little harsh to say those who do not support the leaning towards the west and indeed as you put it an issue of sovereignty and strategic independence as being automatically be leaning towards Russia. This auto robot compare was unfair. To my knowledge, there is no Russian demand for anything close to the CISMOA? I also think members should develop some thick skin and not take everything so personally. I think all can be a little more polite in this age of instant communications.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5289
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Viv S » 30 Jul 2018 22:32

ShauryaT wrote:Viv S: You may not have meant it as an attack but member kshirin took the Russophile comment as such. A little harsh to say those who do not support the leaning towards the west and indeed as you put it an issue of sovereignty and strategic independence as being automatically be leaning towards Russia. This auto robot compare was unfair.

Its a description of the Russophilic part of the import lobby (contrasted with the Western-philic part). No reason for an individual who's not a part of any lobby to take offence.

To my knowledge, there is no Russian demand for anything close to the CISMOA? I also think members should develop some thick skin and not take everything so personally. I think all can be a little more polite in this age of instant communications.

We do have information secrecy pacts with Russia, as well as with others such as France (eg. Rafale contract). Nothing as intrusive as the CISMOA of course. COMCASA will be different from the CISMOA as well.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Rahul M » 30 Jul 2018 22:52

Vis S has been warned and banned for a day. clearly mod leniency sends the wrong signals.
no more on this please. kindly stick to Indo-US relations.
- Rahul

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 30 Jul 2018 23:47

Indian MoD approves import of NASAMS air-defence system - from Janes
India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has approved the USD 1 billion acquisition of an upgraded version of the Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace/Raytheon National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) – commonly referred to as NASAMS II – for the Indian Air Force (IAF) to bolster the country’s air defences over the federal capital New Delhi.

Defence sources told Jane’ s that the MoD’s Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), which is headed by Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, “quietly” cleared the procurement of an undisclosed number of NASAMS batteries in early July via the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme as part of the government’s ‘Delhi Area Defence Plan’ against attacks by enemy aircraft, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

The sources said the new air-defence system will eventually supplement the long-delayed indigenous two-tier ballistic missile defence (BMD) shield that is in an advanced stage of development by India’s state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The DRDO had claimed in 2011 that the BMD shield would be in place above Delhi and Mumbai by 2014; but the system is still undergoing periodic testing to validate its capability to track and destroy incoming hostile aerial targets both inside and outside the Earth’s atmosphere.

A NASAMS battery consists of up to 12 multimissile launchers, each of which can carry six AIM-120-series advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs) or other surface-to-air missiles (SAMs); up to eight AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel X-band 3D radars; up to four Fire Distribution Centres (FDCs); and up to four MPS 500 electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensor system vehicles.


Valued at $1 billion, it does not show up on the FMS site. It is a lot of money and will affect the future development of DRDO's own missile defence programme.

NASAMS-II is commonly fielded in NATO states and this acquisition is a cause of concern in russia.

No tender was issued for this purchase. Perhaps it is meant to calm US concerns on the S-400 order
Last edited by nvishal on 31 Jul 2018 15:07, edited 3 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2018 00:06

Key word is "supplement". If that's true it's fine: India can afford to spend 1billion USD to get a system to stop decapitation strikes. Question. Why does this fire AMRAAMs? Is it an airborne system (which is how I would do it).

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2018 00:08

OTOH, the $1B could have brought 1kW installed PV power to every single village in India, rendering the point of most air strikes moot. Oh well!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50624
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby ramana » 31 Jul 2018 00:18

nvishal, Thanks for posting that Stratfor op-ed...
Kissinger advise to play the Russia card against China means that US is now reduced to balance of power tactics just as Great Britain was reduced to playing in Europe.

Paul Kennedy in his 'Rise and Fall of Great Powers' book says that there is absolute power and then there is balance of power strategy of a lesser power.

One essay:

LINK

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 31 Jul 2018 01:41

The balancing strategy is the primary mode of how the US operates. It is an intrinsic part of that civilizations culture.

The person who made the rise of china possible was none other than kissenger himself and he knows this well(Imagine knowing you goofed up major). I suspect that the paksitanis were instructed by the chinese to nuclearize iran, knowing well that it would un-balance the middle-east, forcing the americans focus. The nuclearisation of north korea does the same on the korean peninsula.

The chinese trade with russia is much greater than india. Like india, the russians are handicapped by the US dollar and prefer to trade with china because it is viable for its economic growth. Meanwhile, the chinese-indian disproportion is so huge that getting onboard the US mission to balance china will render us incapacitate, akin to pakistan(vis a vis india)

Kissenger was punked by indira. Not only did she invade an american ally, she divided it into two. He understood that the genocide would permanently shape indian foreign policy and that is why he preferred to choose russia to balance china. The actual game changer between chinese-russian relations is economic. The same will happen between india and china.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10431
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby pankajs » 31 Jul 2018 07:31

1. While America turned a blind eye to Nuclear proliferation to Bakistan it was China that transferred the Nuclear Tech.
2. Who is protecting all the baki terrorist at the UN? China!
3. While US has declared its support for India to get a permanent seat at the UN many time, how many time has China issued an equivalent statement of support? ... Well if IIRC, SS saar had posted in the main China thread how it actively went about sabotaging any movement on that issues just to keep India out.

I could go on and on. Sooooooooooooooo much love and support for India from China across the board. India needs to be as careful with China as with US, if not more.

If India has to be a junior partner, I would rather have it with the US. At least the US has more to offer to India than China in almost any field that I can think of.

Else we stay balancing between the two.

Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11922
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Suraj » 31 Jul 2018 07:53

US eases export controls for high-tech product sales to India
In a major boost to India, the US on Monday eased export controls for high-technology product sales to it by designating it as a Strategic Trade Authorization-1 (STA-1) country.

List of STA-1 and STA-2 countries:
BIS STA data
36 STA (c)(1) Countries
Argentina AR Germany DE Norway NO
Australia AU Greece GR Poland PL
Austria AT Hungary HU Portugal PT
Belgium BE Iceland IS Romania RO
Bulgaria BG Ireland IE Slovakia SK
Canada CA Italy IT Slovenia SI
Croatia HR Japan JP South Korea KR
Czech Republic CZ Latvia LV Spain ES
Denmark DE Lithuania LT Sweden SE
Estonia EE Luxembourg LU Switzerland CH
Finland FI Netherlands NL Turkey TR
France FR New Zealand NZ United Kingdom GB

8 STA (c)(2) Countries
Albania AL
Hong Kong HK
India IN
Israel IL
Malta MT
Singapore SG
South Africa ZA
Taiwan TW

India moves from the 2nd list to first one now.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2767
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby chola » 31 Jul 2018 10:41

Suraj wrote:US eases export controls for high-tech product sales to India
In a major boost to India, the US on Monday eased export controls for high-technology product sales to it by designating it as a Strategic Trade Authorization-1 (STA-1) country.

List of STA-1 and STA-2 countries:
BIS STA data
36 STA (c)(1) Countries
Argentina AR Germany DE Norway NO
Australia AU Greece GR Poland PL
Austria AT Hungary HU Portugal PT
Belgium BE Iceland IS Romania RO
Bulgaria BG Ireland IE Slovakia SK
Canada CA Italy IT Slovenia SI
Croatia HR Japan JP South Korea KR
Czech Republic CZ Latvia LV Spain ES
Denmark DE Lithuania LT Sweden SE
Estonia EE Luxembourg LU Switzerland CH
Finland FI Netherlands NL Turkey TR
France FR New Zealand NZ United Kingdom GB

8 STA (c)(2) Countries
Albania AL
Hong Kong HK
India IN
Israel IL
Malta MT
Singapore SG
South Africa ZA
Taiwan TW

India moves from the 2nd list to first one now.


Good. STA C 1 looks like NATO and top East Asian partners
Japan and SK. The STA C 2 list includes nations likely to pass on tech to the chinis (Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore obviously but probably Israel too) so the restrictions must have been far greater.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9758
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby UlanBatori » 31 Jul 2018 14:14

Suraj wrote:US eases export controls for high-tech product sales to India
List of STA-2 countries:
[url=https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/technology-evaluation/ote-data-portal/ecr-analysis/1537-sta-use-july-2011-june-2016
8 STA (c)(2) Countries
Albania AL
Hong Kong HK
India IN,Israel IL,Malta MT,Singapore SG,South Africa ZA,Taiwan TW

[/quote]
Hilarious. So Americans can trade with HONG KONG as a Strategic Al-Lie... but not PRC. :rotfl:
Can u believe the list was updated June 2016? Obviously to circumvent COTUS prohibition on NASA and other dealings with PRC. Shows how deeply PRC has bought the SDOTUS.
Is HK even a country? What next? Crimea? Fao Peninsula?
But where is Terroristan? :((

Meanwhile, to get an idea of the COTUS/PRC battle, see this:
Sec. 1283 of the House Version of NDAA Unconstitutionally Endangered an estimated 100,000 {PRC FAvorites}

On May 24 of this year, H.R. 5515, entitled Nat'l Defense Authorization Act of 2019, or NDAA, passed. Its Section 1283, entitled "Certification and Authority to Terminate Funding for Academic Research Relating To Foreign Talent Programs", stated:

"that such funds shall not be made available to any individual who has
participated
in or is currently participating in a foreign talent or expert
recruitment program of a country listed in subsection (d)." (emphasis
added)
Subsection (d) : The People's Republic of China, N. Korea, Russia & Iran.


What It Meant. NOTE that It's Unconstitutional!
It would mean that anyone having spent a portion of one's sabbatical or vacation in a visiting program on the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong or Macau, may NOT be be eligible for grants/contracts that contain Dept. of Defense money.
We estimate that tens of thousands of Americans and (PRC favorites), especially professors and professionals in private industries would be adversely affected.

The 4 words shown in red in Sec 1283 made it unconstitutional, since the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 prohibits retroactive
legislation punishing individuals for events that were legal and occurred before the new judicial and/or legislative decision.
Working behind the scenes to keep the language of Sec. 1283 out of the Senate version
Knowing the potential harm to our community, (PRC agint) contacted the political leaders he knows, documenting for them the unconstitutional nature of Sec. 1283. His message was met with sympathetic hearings. The senate version,passed on 6/19, kept the language of Sec. 1283 out. Working behind the scenes to keep the language of Sec. 1283 out of the FINAL version

However, the two versions of the NDAA were to go into a Senate-House Conference Committee to settle their differences. Only delegates to this committee would have a say in the final version. Senator Tom Carper of Delaware again provided the critical help. He asked two Democratic senators who were delegates to the conference to keep an eye out for us and to try and keep the language of Sec. 1283 out.
At the Conf. Comm., as a compromise, Republicans senators Cornyn and Cotton made an amendment entitled: "Initiative to support protection of national security academic researchers from undue influence and other security threats." Please note the drastic differences in the titles of 1286 and the earlier 1283. Sec 1286 took out the unconstitutional language in Sec 1283 of the House version and also deleted the names of the 4 nations, for now at least.. It asked the Defense Department to consult the academic community before enacting rules to disqualify "offenders" from DOD contracts. Click here to view the compromise version, passed a few days ago. Go to pages 1116 to 1120.

Mission Accomplished THIS time. Will {Agint} be as successful the next time or every time? My guess is "NO !!!", unless each of us will do our share to forge unity within the {PRC} community, before it is too late. Things will likely get tougher.


Not a word seen outside in the media. All done & dusted before it ever came out.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15567
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2018 15:58

kshirin wrote:Kindly remove my ID from Bharat Rakshak. I thought this was a forum for genuine patriots. Clearly there is no room for me here. Thanks a lot.


KShirin - kindly reconsider your decision.

Your input is valued & you present a strong viewpoint much required on fora like BRF. Furthermore, through this fora, your voice and viewpoints reach a lot of folks and influence opinions.

Leaving the fora would not advance India's interests.

Thanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15567
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Karan M » 31 Jul 2018 16:02

pankajs wrote:I think you misread my question. It was clear that NASAMS was at one end but what is it displacing at the other end? That was my question.

You think it is Akash and they are likely in the same category. Have you compared NASAMS with Akash? Perhaps NASAMS has some features that Akash still doesn't have and the powers that be deem as critical. Perhaps Delhi can live without those features.

BTW, the article referenced in the post has DRDO BMD system as a reference rather than Akash missile system.


I see no Indian equivalent system which is overwhelmingly inferior to the NASAMs. At least not based on published data.

Barak8 has superior radar, and ranged missiles.

DRDO BMD is a different beast altogether and need not even be compared.

Perhaps the Sentinel radar being X Band has better resolution than the longer ranged S Band radar on Barak-8, but the latter has active seeker equipped missiles which are even being developed for the anti-missile role for the IA.

So the NASAMS procurement is puzzling.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 31 Jul 2018 21:23

Karan M wrote:the NASAMS procurement is puzzling

Probably something to do with the S400. Like the S400, the NASAMS was done without a tender. It doesn't appear on the MoD's press release. It's primary role is anti-UAV. At 1 billion, surely the Indian army must have tested the system in field. If it did, it must have done it in good secrecy because Jane's appears to have a few indian officers in the MoD on payroll and they would have leaked it back to them.
Last edited by nvishal on 31 Jul 2018 23:44, edited 2 times in total.

kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 384
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby kshirin » 31 Jul 2018 21:59

Karan M wrote:
kshirin wrote:Kindly remove my ID from Bharat Rakshak. I thought this was a forum for genuine patriots. Clearly there is no room for me here. Thanks a lot.


KShirin - kindly reconsider your decision.

Your input is valued & you present a strong viewpoint much required on fora like BRF. Furthermore, through this fora, your voice and viewpoints reach a lot of folks and influence opinions.

Leaving the fora would not advance India's interests.

Thanks.


Thank you, I really like your posts also. I cannot understand how genuinely patriotic members of the Forum can be called "philes" of any other country. And the member slyly continued to insinuate that I am. I used to think this Forum existed to promote Indian national interest. But I shall stay for a while, if only to remain in touch with you and members like Phillip etc. Admin should ensure that genuine people who care for the country are not ridiculed, and discussions on important national issues are encouraged.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby Rahul M » 31 Jul 2018 23:16

kshirin, just a little advice, if you feel someone is attacking you, responding in kind means you are as guilty as the original offender. by doing so you tie our hands because then either both need to be served warnings or both have to be let go.
the correct way is to report the post and move on, one of the mods will look into it.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 736
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Postby nvishal » 31 Jul 2018 23:49

NASAMS rumour from Aug 2017

http://idrw.org/what-is-nasams-and-why- ... ring-them/

NASAMS mostly likely will be acquired as short-term gap fill measure to replace older Russian Air Defence systems and to ... study and... further improve QR-SAM or be used as a stop-gap measure until local development is concluded.


Edit: All NASAMS comments should be in norway-india thread as it is a Norwegian air defence system and the US FMS is just a commission broker between india-norway.


Same with the m777 which belongs to the UK


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ambar, Ashok Sarraff, Mollick.R, Sachin, Vips and 22 guests