India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 16 Sep 2010 03:51

Why Foreign Students Don’t Crowd Out Americans ---- By Ben Wildavsky
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Why-Forei ... _medium=en

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Sep 2010 20:23

X-Posted from India-EU News & Analysis Thread

What Americans, Europeans, and Turks think about China and India [Chart 10]

Transatlantic Trends: The German Marshall Fund of the United States (pdf)

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 16 Sep 2010 23:45

Nirupama Rao leaves to discuss agenda for Obama's India tour

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao on Thursday left for the U.S. where she will meet several high-level officials, including Chairman of the Senate on Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the agenda for President Barack Obama’s India tour in November.

While Indians are not happy with the U.S. raising the H1B and L1 visa fee and one of its states, Ohio, imposing a ban on outsourcing, the Americans, too, have their gripes and expect their concerns to be addressed, including those on nuclear liability bill, which was recently passed by Parliament.

Mr. Obama is visiting India in November and besides New Delhi, he will travel to Amritsar and Mumbai, where he is expected to pay tribute to victims of 26/11 terror attacks. In Amritsar, the U.S. President will be visiting the Golden Temple.

FS is being very busy.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Sep 2010 23:58

The Golden Temple visit could be related to NRI supporters in US. Didn't he remark Hillary Clinton D-Punjab during the campaign?

Mauli · Post by **Mauli** » 17 Sep 2010 03:50

Koran Burning at Ground Zero

http://ebaumnation.com/2010/09/13/koran ... round-zero

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 17 Sep 2010 04:59

OMG....is the curfew still on in Kashmir Valley?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Sep 2010 07:18

Wrong thread?

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 17 Sep 2010 08:59

US had denied CM Modi visa over the accusation of starting a riot (that too not in US and nobody from US was harmed either). Does it make sense for India to start denying visas for US officials for causing destruction and riots in India?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Sep 2010 10:57

Blackwater's sinister global black ops.Fascinating reading.2 page article.

One fact,Blackwater,sought to be "sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto," to infiltraet antibio-tech groups!

http://www.thenation.com/article/154739 ... -black-ops

Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article.

]Blackwater's Black Ops
Related Content
Blackwater: CIA Assassins?
The Secret US War in Pakistan
The Secret US War in Pakistan
Blackwater's Private Spies
Blackwater for Sale

Jeremy Scahill, a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blackwater...

Shhhhhh! JSOC is Hiring Interrogators and Covert Operatives for 'Special Access Programs' (Covert Ops, US Intelligence, US Military)
The military's most elite, secretive force has started advertising for highly-sensitive positions on public jobs sites. Is this 'Preparing the Battlefield' 2.0?

Jeremy Scahill
12 comments WikiLeaks and War Crimes (Internet and New Media, Covert Ops, US Military, US Wars and Military Action)

There was a brief moment when it seemed the evidence of civilian killings, military cover ups and widespread lack of accountability contained in the WikiLeaks documents would spark a genuine inquiry into US conduct in Afghanistan.
Jeremy Scahill

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince's companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command.

On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had "created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq." The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater.

The coordinator of Blackwater's covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique "Ric" Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their "deniability" as a "big plus" for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these "deniable" foreign forces don't even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA's assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince's properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater's foreign operatives in CIA operations was that "you wouldn't want to have American fingerprints on it."

While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line "Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete," Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed "a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations." He added, "These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus."

The executive wrote back and suggested there "may be an interest" in those services. The executive suggested that "one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA," telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counternarcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces. The executive also told Prado that US attachés in Mexico; Bogotá, Colombia; and Bangkok, Thailand, would potentially be interested in Prado's network. Whether this network was activated, and for what customers, cannot be confirmed. A former Blackwater employee who worked on the company's CIA program declined to comment on Prado's work for the company, citing its classified status.

In November 2007 officials from Prince's companies developed a pricing structure for security and intelligence services for private companies and wealthy individuals. One official wrote that Prado had the capacity to "develop infrastructures" and "conduct ground-truth and security activities." According to the pricing chart, potential customers could hire Prado and other Blackwater officials to operate in the United States and globally: in Latin America, North Africa, francophone countries, the Middle East, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, and Central and Southeast Asia. A four-man team headed by Prado for countersurveillance in the United States cost $33,600 weekly, while "safehouses" could be established for $250,000, plus operational costs. Identical services were offered globally. For $5,000 a day, clients could hire Prado or former senior CIA officials Cofer Black and Robert Richer for "representation" to national "decision-makers." Before joining Blackwater, Black, a twenty-eight-year CIA veteran, ran the agency's counterterrorism center, while Richer was the agency's deputy director of operations. (Neither Black nor Richer currently works for the company.)

As Blackwater became embroiled in controversy following the Nisour Square massacre, Prado set up his own company, Constellation Consulting Group (CCG), apparently taking some of Blackwater's covert CIA work with him, though he maintained close ties to his former employer. In an e-mail to a Total Intelligence executive in February 2008, Prado wrote that he "recently had major success in developing capabilities in Mali [Africa] that are of extreme interest to our major sponsor and which will soon launch a substantial effort via my small shop." He requested Total Intelligence's help in analyzing the "North Mali/Niger terrorist problem."

What relationship Prado's CCG has with the CIA is not known. An early version of his company's website boasted that "CCG professionals have already conducted operations on five continents, and have proven their ability to meet the most demanding client needs" and that the company has the "ability to manage highly-classified contracts." CCG, the site said, "is uniquely positioned to deliver services that no other company can, and can deliver results in the most remote areas with little or no outside support." Among the services advertised were "Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (human and electronic), Unconventional Military Operations, Counterdrug Operations, Aviation Services, Competitive Intelligence, Denied Area Access...and Paramilitary Training."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Sep 2010 11:06

Blackwater contd. Relations wth Benazir and Monsanto!

The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater's work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired "American security," senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, "We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking." Richer wrote that "we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile." Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqué. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008.

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 17 Sep 2010 15:13

Obama does not want India visit to be merely symbolic

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 17 Sep 2010 18:31

Where Should Obama Go in India?

MUMBAI: A likely stop to show solidarity with the victims of the 26/11 attacks, which included Americans, and to showcase the increased counter-terrorism cooperation between the U.S. and India that was formalized with a new pact in June. A stay at the Taj or the Oberoi-Trident hotels, the lasting symbols of the attack and the city’s recovery, might emphasize the point nicely.

Other places quoted-
1) Amritsar-- visit Golden temple. But definite no to wagah and speak nonsense of wkkitis. may well do it just for poloitical correctness.

2) Taj Mahal- Given the lingering rumors in the U.S. that Mr. Obama is himself Muslim (this is not viewed by the people who believe it as a good thing), it may not play well to attend a mausoleum for a Mughal ruler that is located right next to a mosque. Moreover, if Mr. Obama’s Democratic colleagues are trounced in the mid-term Congressional elections a few days before he arrives in India, shots of the Obamas holding hands at a famously-romantic vacation spot in a faraway land may not look good on the U.S. evening news.

3) Assam-- Tea party---

4) Delhi-- Can he avoid it.

Places he should avoid---
1) Bangalore-- or else he will be Bangalored
2) Chennai- Detroit of India, with Detroit slowly becoming a decaying city.

Places he should visit---
1) Gujarat- best performing state. He can learn some lessons in governance from NaMo.

3) Kerala-- He can swim in the shores with CM and confirm that BP oil has not reached here

( PS- some of them lifted from kamments section)

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 18 Sep 2010 14:07

Foreign Secretary Rao discusses UNSC permanent seat for India with top U.S. officials

"We were able to discuss the entire gamut of bilateral relations and also look at the regional and global situation. We talked about India's candidature for permanent seat in the Security Council and the U.S approach to that." "We spoke about export controls and high technology exports and the removal of U.S. controls on such exports to India. As you know, both the sides are discussing this matter at the moment," she further added.

Rao also revealed that officials of the two sides spoke about co-operation in such areas as in agriculture, health, education and weather forecasting. "You know, the whole relationship, the strategic partnership, the global strategic partnership has flowered in a number of areas. This is a reflection of the change, the dynamic change, the transformational change in the relationship between India and the United States," she said.

She said that she had met U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterpart Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, and discussed modalities for President Barack Obama's November visit to India. "I am basically here to prepare for the visit of President Obama to India this coming November. So, in my meeting we discussed the agenda for the visit and what both sides hope to achieve as outcomes for the visit. And, I had a series of meetings, as I just said, not only with my counterpart Under Secretary of State William Burns, but I called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I also met the National Security Advisor General Jim Jones."

Commenting on the latest developments related to civil nuclear cooperation between India and the United States and the Nuclear Liability Bill, Rao said: "The bill has been passed by the (Indian) parliament, and we were able to brief the U.S. side about the bill, and the fact that it is not discriminatory against any foreign supplier of nuclear power equipment to India, and that we would like U.S companies, as we would like other foreign companies to engage in serious discussions with our nuclear power in industry to take such co-operation forward."

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Sep 2010 03:17

Robert Wright and the Koran: Grappling with the Wrong Religion

But I cannot help regretting that such well-intentioned efforts always suffer from a crippling flaw. When liberals counter neoconservative attacks on Islam, they often couch their remarks within the context of Christianity and Judaism—but they rarely acknowledge the one overriding religion in America: nationalism.
The right’s focus on Islam is not about Islam; it is about America. It is about blurring out the role that American-Israeli violence plays in spawning Islamist violence by blaming Islam itself for the latter. So it is not necessarily fruitful to respond to this Islam-gazing with more Islam-gazing.

http://www.fpif.org/blog/robert_wright_ ... FeedBurner

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Sep 2010 10:41

shukla wrote:Foreign Secretary Rao discusses UNSC permanent seat for India with top U.S. officials

At this moment, I am not particularly enthralled about India being given a UNSC permanent seat.

For if it is given, it would be used by the current GoI to mask and hide, the severe loss of strategic space, that we have incurred at the hands of the Chinese lately. India's strategic losses have been many times greater than what we suffered in 1962.

If those strategic losses are simply going to be swept away under the carpet of UNSC permanent seat, then I do not favor it, however if the GoI shows its determination to win back the lost strategic space, then a UNSC permanent seat would be the icing.

Otherwise it is just Jai Ho!

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 19 Sep 2010 11:20

In fact the US China equilibrium needs to shift a little more towards China. India will be welcomed into the UNSC as a natural (praise be the heavens). Right now the only reason India is not at the high table is that China is relatively too weak and has been careful not to threatene US vital interests. Especially since India has opted to join multilateral containment protocols alongside Japan, US, Australia. It is only a question of a few months or a year before they exercise with South Korea to be sure.

Perhaps India sold itself too cheaply. Perhaps at the time these arrangements were made, the US was indeed the sure thing. Only now it looks more in need of some support itself. India got some technology (cf the accelerating missile program), uranium and has been conferred some respectability in spite of illegitimately losing its nuclear virginity (twice!).

If China's bubble economy keeps being endlessly fed stimulus dollars, if the US keeps deflating its debt, if the Yuan is relentlessly forced up, if US household savings goes to a lowly 5%, if American culture veers away from Walmart as the opium of the masses, China's century will have a premature and rapid denouement. The Faustian bargain made by Chinese with the CCP is due for termination. That is even if they are successful as a middle income country, political liberalisation, which will inevitably follow, carries the seeds of the dissolution of China, exactly the same as the other communist/authoritarian empire of the twentieth century. I believe these things will come to pass. India needs to position itself as the new low cost goods supplier. This means a business friendly culture which is anathema to Indian politicians as they lose patronage.

China is hostage to its own contradictions.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Sep 2010 11:52

Nihat wrote:Obama does not want India visit to be merely symbolic

Maybe MMS should safe guard his (our!!) pockets and count the cutlery immediately after the state dinner.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 19 Sep 2010 15:49

chetak wrote:
Nihat wrote:Obama does not want India visit to be merely symbolic
Maybe MMS should safe guard his (our!!) pockets and count the cutlery immediately after the state dinner.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Sep 2010 11:50

chetak wrote:
Nihat wrote:Obama does not want India visit to be merely symbolic
Maybe MMS should safe guard his (our!!) pockets and count the cutlery immediately after the state dinner.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Sep 2010 11:58

sanjaykumar wrote:In fact the US China equilibrium needs to shift a little more towards China. India will be welcomed into the UNSC as a natural (praise be the heavens). Right now the only reason India is not at the high table is that China is relatively too weak and has been careful not to threatene US vital interests. Especially since India has opted to join multilateral containment protocols alongside Japan, US, Australia. It is only a question of a few months or a year before they exercise with South Korea to be sure.

Perhaps India sold itself too cheaply. Perhaps at the time these arrangements were made, the US was indeed the sure thing. Only now it looks more in need of some support itself. India got some technology (cf the accelerating missile program), uranium and has been conferred some respectability in spite of illegitimately losing its nuclear virginity (twice!).

If China's bubble economy keeps being endlessly fed stimulus dollars, if the US keeps deflating its debt, if the Yuan is relentlessly forced up, if US household savings goes to a lowly 5%, if American culture veers away from Walmart as the opium of the masses, China's century will have a premature and rapid denouement. The Faustian bargain made by Chinese with the CCP is due for termination. That is even if they are successful as a middle income country, political liberalisation, which will inevitably follow, carries the seeds of the dissolution of China, exactly the same as the other communist/authoritarian empire of the twentieth century. I believe these things will come to pass. India needs to position itself as the new low cost goods supplier. This means a business friendly culture which is anathema to Indian politicians as they lose patronage.

China is hostage to its own contradictions.

Good analysis

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 08:16

ramana wrote:Its turning point day. Under National Security implications Constitutional right got trampled. Further erosion after 9-11.

A scholar ecohes my views:

Is Koran Burning Protected by Free Speech?

by Daniel Huff
Fox News
September 20, 2010

http://www.meforum.org/2749/koran-burning-free-speech
Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google Buzz Digg del.icio.us

The struggle for civil rights forged a national commitment to preserving free speech in the face of hostile audiences. It is alarming how quickly the Koran controversy has melted that resolve.

Initially, everyone from Mayor Bloomberg to the White House affirmed a right to burn the book even as they condemned the act. Then Gen. David Petraeus got involved, followed by the FBI, and now Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says Koran burning may not be protected speech after all.

The key to this rapid reversal was General Petraeus' warning that Koran burning "could endanger troops" and the war effort. Although styled as a request not a demand, his comments laid the legal foundation for compelled government censorship. The reason is that First Amendment rights are not absolute. The Constitution permits the government to censor speech if necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. This is a very high standard, but the fact that the nation's top commander made a rare public appeal for restraint will be cited as strong evidence that avoiding offense to Muslims is essential to the national interest.

Once this dangerous premise is accepted, the door is open to court injunctions against speech that inflames Muslim sentiment in strategically important locations.

It has already started.

Last week, the New Jersey Transit Authority fired an 11-year veteran employee for burning the Koran at a 9/11 rally. Ordinarily, a government employee cannot be dismissed for expressing personal views on a matter of public concern unless it interferes with the orderly functioning of the workplace. Should he sue, the government may try the "Petraeus defense."

Hopefully it will fail.

In a series of cases arising out of civil rights demonstrations, the Supreme Court explicitly held that free expression cannot be limited "simply because it might offend a hostile mob."

An alternative rule, would reward bad behavior creating what First Amendment experts call a "heckler's veto." Dunlap v. City of Chicago illustrates the extent of this principle. Officials had denied demonstrators a permit to march in a predominantly white area because every prior similar protest in the vicinity had resulted in violence. When they sued, the district court not only ordered the city to permit the parade, it also demanded officials provide policemen "in such numbers as … are required to afford adequate protection" to the marchers. When the violence officials feared materialized, the court allowed a suit against the city for providing insufficient police protection.

The argument that speech should be censored to prevent violence was rejected in the civil rights context and it should not be accepted now.

That is what made it so frustrating to hear the president, in the very same appearance, denounce Koran burning for fear of offending Muslims, but insist the First Amendment rights of the Ground Zero Mosque planners trump the "extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11." In essence, opponents of the GZM project are being punished for not being violent.

The perverseness of this approach is even starker considering there is no genuine First Amendment issue in the Ground Zero context. That provision places constraints on the government; not on the general public's right to pressure a religious group. By contrast, the Administration's pressure on the Florida pastor, which included dispatching the FBI to impress upon him that his life would be in danger, carries the distinct flavor of prohibited government interference.

Legal wrangling aside, the Administration has it backwards from a strategic standpoint. Insisting Americans curb their First Amendment rights in deference to Muslims, but not asking Muslims to do the same when Americans are offended creates a privileged status for Islam which is exactly what the extremists want. Their goal is to impose a radical brand of Islamic law on society at large. Censoring speech that insults or critiques Islam is the first step in this process and the US government should not be doing it for them.

Even at the tactical level it doesn't make sense. The Obama administration argued Koran burnings could function as a "recruitment tool for Al Qaeda." But anyone who could actually be driven to terrorism by a stunt from a handful of individuals thousands of miles away is no moderate. He was going to be set off eventually anyway. Better to flush him into the open now.

Senior military officials also worried it would hurt our efforts to "win hearts and minds." Afghans "do not understand either the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can't simply issue a decree to stop" Koran burning.

It would be one thing if Afghan operations were just beginning and America's good faith needed to be established. But U.S. forces have been there 9 years. If the billions spent and thousands lost are not proof enough of America's commitment, nothing ever will be.

As such, curbing free speech rights buys only temporary appeasement and it comes at a high cost. Not only do we compromise our principles, but it emboldens extremists who will conclude the Administration is so fearful of retaliation it jettisoned its inaugural promise to reject the "false …choice between our safety and our ideals."

Daniel Huff is the Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum. He previously served as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and as an associate at McKinsey & Company.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Sep 2010 10:18

'Obama approval dips in India, Pak'

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-app ... 02681.aspx

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Sep 2010 11:43

ramana wrote:
ramana wrote:Its turning point day. Under National Security implications Constitutional right got trampled. Further erosion after 9-11.
A scholar ecohes my views:

As they say, you dont lose till you officially accept defeat. Obama has turned US military victory into a defeat.

He has outdone the INC in such a spectacular feat.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 21 Sep 2010 11:58

In this regard I much prefered the policies of Bush. He was clear and consistant where the resuls were concerned. Though not very Intellectual and articulate. I feel that History will judge him as one of the better US presidents. As compared to the Massiah

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 Sep 2010 12:12

abhishek_sharma wrote:'Obama approval dips in India, Pak'

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-app ... 02681.aspx

Perhaps the malign role of the US in arming the Islamic Republic of Pakistan under the guise of fighting terrorism with weapons most suited to be used against India, is being picked up by the Indian public.

The complete poll by Gallup on which the HT article is based can be seen here:

U.S. Leadership Gains Approval in Parts of Asia

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 21 Sep 2010 12:52

Ego massaging in full swing ahead of Obama visit...

New global lineup lists India as 3rd most powerful nation

WASHINGTON: Recognising India's growing clout in the world, an official US report on global governance here declared the country the fourth most powerful nation/bloc behind the US, China and the European Union.

The new global power lineup for 2010 compiling the world's most powerful countries/regions recognised India as the third most powerful country behind the US and China, and predicted that its clout as well as that of China and Brazil would further rise by 2025.

"Global Governance 2025" -- a follow-on to the NIC's 2008 report - was jointly issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the powerful Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).

In 2010, the US tops the list of powerful countries/regions, accounting for nearly 22 per cent of the global power.

The US is followed by China (more than 12 per cent), European Union (more than 16 per cent), India (nearly eight per cent), and less than five per cent each for Japan, Russia and Brazil.

According to this international futures model, by 2025 the power of the US, EU, Japan and Russia would decline while that of China, India and Brazil would increase, even though there would be no change in this listing.

By 2025, the United States would still be the most powerful country of the world, but it would have a little over 18 per cent of the global power.

The US would be closely followed by China (nearly 16 per cent), European Union (14 per cent) and India (10 per cent).

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Sep 2010 15:20

U.S. not in a position to take lead on climate change: Ramesh

http://www.thehindu.com/news/article740240.ece

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 21 Sep 2010 18:03

Carter Has Superiority Complex

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Sep 2010 22:56

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/sep/ ... h-asia.htm

Shocker:
US backs Chinese role in South Asia
September 21, 2010 18:11 IST

The United States says China has an important role to play in South Asia, according to the Hong Kong-based Web site 2point6billion.com

'I know there is a certain sensitivity maybe about that, but I don't see that it should be the case,' US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told a conference at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC on Monday.

'China has an important role -- it's a neighbour of South Asia -- and it's unimaginable that China would not be involved,' he added.

Saying that Chinese involvement could help peace and stability, specifically in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he added: 'We would like Chinese involvement to be constructive, to help us deal with the challenge of peace and stability in Afghanistan, and dealing with making sure that it doesn't become a terrorist haven again, which would threaten all of us.'

Steinberg Said the US would like to see India take a more proactive role in East China and that Washington considers New Delhi a 'key partner' in Asia.

'We see India as (an) East Asian country. We engage with them on issues like North Korea and the like because we think of the importance that India plays,' he said.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Sep 2010 23:04

^

So USA (atleast in this guys Words) sees PRC in south Asia and India in East Asia so that:

1. india and china will be threatened by each other in their local regions and

2. Their force projections are away from their core military-industrial complex.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Sep 2010 23:50

One is not sure whether its a prior US approval or after the fait accompli to pretend to be tight with PRC. Need more data.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Sep 2010 23:54

ramana wrote:One is not sure whether its a prior US approval or after the fait accompli to pretend to be tight with PRC. Need more data.

If you can't prevent it, approve it.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Sep 2010 05:16

MoD clears joint amphibious exercise at US base near China

A year after the Defence Ministry backed out of a military exercise at a US base near China at the last minute, a go-ahead has been given for a joint amphibious exercise at the US Marines base in Okinawa, Japan. The war game, which will involve senior officers of the Indian Navy and Army is scheduled to start later this week and will continue till October.
...
...
The same exercise, under the Habu Nag series of war games, was cancelled at the final stage in 2009 when 12 officers who had been earmarked were sent back to their formations days before they were scheduled to depart. While no reason was given for the last minute pull-out, regional sensitivities were thought to be behind the move. Okinawa is located close to China and has a significant US presence where several military bases are concentrated.
...
...
India is sending a 14-member delegation for the Habu Nag exercise that will consist of officers from the Indian Navy and Army. The exercise has been described as “very unique” by a US government official who said that there aren’t many marine forces across the world that carry out such operations.

...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Sep 2010 05:17

Antony to highlight US military aid to Pak

Defence Minister A K Antony will raise Indian concerns about continued military aid to Pakistan with top US officials during his visit to Washington on September 27-28.

Antony, who is leading a high-level delegation to the US next week, will meet his counterpart, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor (NSA) Gen James Jones during the visit.
...
...
While no pacts or defence deals are to be signed during the visit, the two sides will discuss a variety of issues, including the security situation in the region and the increasing military assertiveness of China.

While the US will discuss the three bilateral defence agreements that it has been pushing for — on communication interoperability, logistics support and geo-spatial cooperation — sources said the Indian side was still not convinced of the need for the pacts.

...
...
The Defence Minister’s high-level delegation includes two officers who are expected to take over as service chiefs in the near future — Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen Bikram Singh and Commander of the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) Admiral D K Joshi — besides Director General (Operations) of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal A K Gogoi.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 22 Sep 2010 06:19

ramana wrote:One is not sure whether its a prior US approval or after the fait accompli to pretend to be tight with PRC. Need more data.

My theory, FWIW, is that as the west (US and EU) declines it will more than willingly cooperate with China at India's expense. This, I feel, is the greatest strategic challenge for India in the coming years.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Sep 2010 06:24

putnanja wrote:Antony to highlight US military aid to Pak

Mr. Antony must go beyond "highlighting" US-Pak perfidy. He should "demand" that US must choose between India and Pakistan as far as its defense exports are concerned.

It is altogether different matter if USA has extra money to help Pakistan in civilian sector, such as food, education, health etc. And India recommends that this aid is provided in material form and not in Cash.

Assuming a 30% profit, a $10-20B defense/nuke-power business by India provides $3-6B cash that USA is using to fund TSP military.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Sep 2010 06:55

RamaY:

I would not put it that way. Then, that gives the likes of Uneven who often chastize India for doing equal equal herself even as to complains to US of hyphenation. The better strategy would be for India to demand that US aid to TSP must by limited to civilian and must be predicated on TSP dismantling India-specific terrorists and not just so called "Al Queda". This is actually tantamount to asking US to choose between India & TSP, albeit using a different set of words.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Sep 2010 07:04

merlin wrote:
ramana wrote:One is not sure whether its a prior US approval or after the fait accompli to pretend to be tight with PRC. Need more data.
My theory, FWIW, is that as the west (US and EU) declines it will more than willingly cooperate with China at India's expense. This, I feel, is the greatest strategic challenge for India in the coming years.

merlin, The PRC rebuff to US talking about Japan shows the Dy SOS was talking thru musharraf.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Sep 2010 09:13

CRamS garu,

I think we are saying same thing. The difference is that India offers carrots and sticks..

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 22 Sep 2010 10:05

It is important to get across the idea that TSP being a terrorist entity, any supply of armaments to it is an illegitimate act.