Indian Foreign Policy

[VinodTK]

An 'interloper's' view of diplomacy

No country with over 100 diplomatic missions around the world functions with less than 1,000 executive or diplomatic rank officials. Mexico, with 80 missions (and 70-odd consulates), has around 1,030 and it is seen as a small service. India has over 120 missions — and more are added each year — besides over 40 consulates.

[abhishek_sharma]

From MEA's website

Address by Foreign Secretary at Harvard on ‘India’s Global Role’


20/09/2010

Mr. Michael D Smith, Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Dr Sugata Bose,
Distinguished Guests,

It is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to be here today. Coming back to Harvard – and all the wonderful memories it brings back of the year I spent in 1992-93 as Fellow at the Center for International Affairs or the Weatherhead Center as it is now called, and an earlier stint when my husband was Edward Mason Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1983-1984 – is truly a pleasure and a privilege. When I came to America for the first time, it was to Harvard, and Harvard became my introduction to America. I shall always treasure that connection.

The annual Harish C. Mahindra memorial lecture series has become one of the most talked-about events in Harvard promoting exchanges with South Asia specialists and public figures from South Asia as also in understanding the challenges facing the region. Harish Mahindra has been justifiably compared to someone like a prince of Florence, truly a Renaissance figure, a man who personified the true spirit of intellectual and entrepreneurial endeavour and who knew the beauty of life. In this context, the topic of this evening’s discussion, “India’s Global Role”, has a resonance and topicality that will, I am sure, prove to be a catalyst for an even greater involvement between Harvard and India.


Of late, India’s global role has been mentioned frequently against the backdrop of what we would call a shift of economic power to Asia. Today, it is almost de rigeur to speak of the dynamic Indian growth story despite the ravages of the global economic crisis. But, to put our arms around the Indian experience, you have to beyond just the factor of fast economic growth. And that would lead us onto the quest of India’s attributes and its enduring stability as a modern and democratic nation state.

We are celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of India’s Constitution, this year. I believe that all those who have studied India’s evolution since our independence in August 1947 would agree that the most important, and indeed the most durable, element of India’s profile as a modern nation state is its democratic orientation. Pratap Bhanu Mehta who taught here at Harvard, spoke recently of the deeper virtues from which our Constitution sprang, and I quote : “an ability to combine individuality with mutual regard, intellectualism with a democratic sensibility, conviction with a sense of fallibility, amibition with a commitment to institutions, and hopes for a future with due regard for the past and present”. Ideally, I should like to think that these attributes are as valid in their application to India’s global role in the 21st century, as they were to the founding fathers of our Constitution. Our democratic transformation and the empowerment of millions of Indians who moved from being subjects of a colonial power, to citizens of the world’s largest democracy, is in itself an epic story. Indeed, the Indian model of democratic governance together with its economic strength and dynamism, propels the promise and the potential of India’s role on the global stage.


When we talk of India’s economic transformation, we expect India, at an average growth of a minimum of 7.5% growth in GDP per year to achieve a ten-fold increase in per capita income in the next 30 years and join the ranks of the developed countries; at this rate of growth, by 2020, we should be able to be categorized as a middle income developing country. We do not underestimate the challenges we face of meeting the education, health, energy and infrastructure needs of our population. 66% of our population live in the rural sector which at present contributes only around 20 per cent of our GDP. The issue of increasing agricultural productivity, planning urban growth, ensuring sustainable development while controlling and reducing emissions intensity as a proportion of our GDP, reducing income inequalities, meeting the surge in education demand and ensuring that education access becomes a driver of equality, increasing power generation, and building infrastructure – roads, railways, airports and ports – better management of water resources, are all challenges we have to meet on the road ahead. We have to ensure that growth is inclusive, equitable and empowers the most disadvantaged sections of our population. This approach has shaped and defined India’s role on the global stage today, as the policies we seek to articulate and endorse internationally are based on our own domestic experience.


Sixty years into India’s life as a vibrant democracy, what is the transformation we see in India’s global role? One of my distinguished predecessors, Shri M.K. Rasgotra put it succinctly when he said that the “transformation of India into one of the world’s leading economies, a responsible nuclear weapon power with demonstrated scientific and technological competence, and a stable democracy is a truly phenomenal achievement of our time”. What were the well-springs of India’s foreign policy as we began life as an independent nation? Issues such as decolonization, the creation of an Afro-Asian community of like-minded countries, the emphasis on the principles of peaceful co-existence based on mutual respect between nations, striving for an equitable global system for socio-economic development, initiatives towards global disarmament and a robust participation in United Nations peacekeeping activities can be said to have shaped the initial imprint left by India on global affairs in the last five decades of the twentieth century. These issues are not irrelevant to our participation in global affairs today. Driving our foreign policy priorities and our desire for strategic autonomy are factors of external security, internal security, the need for sustained economic growth, our energy security, maritime security and access to technology and innovation. Further, India is too large a country to be dovetailed into alliance type of relationships. In order to modernize our country we need to, and we have succeeded in, forging well-rounded strategic partnerships with all major powers.


We have a keen sense of our potential to be a great power by virtue of our population, our resources and our strategic location. A fundamental goal of India’s foreign policy is to create an external environment that promotes the fulfilment of our economic growth targets and ambitions. And, these include three dimensions – capital inflows, access to technology and innovation, as well as the promotion of a free, fair and open world trading system that recognizes the development imperatives of a country like India. This requires a peaceful and stable neighbourhood and external environment, a balanced relationship with the major powers and a durable and equitable multilateral global order.

Speaking to our Ambassadors from around the world recently, our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh spoke of the critical need to remove mass poverty in India for which we need a fast expanding economy. Where our global role, and our foreign policy comes into this growth story is to ensure that we create an environment, an external environment that is conducive to an increased flow of capital into the country. We also need to make increasing use of modern science and technology to boost our development profile – the import of such technology therefore becomes an important constituent in our quest to accelerate the pace of our socio-economic development. In our search for energy security, we must look not only at West Asia, but farther afield, to Africa, and to Latin America so that we can develop hydrocarbon resources in these regions and also import such resources for the successful pursuit of our development goals.


Any visualization of India’s global role must begin in our immediate neighbourhood because situational factors in that environment affect our internal security and therefore merit our greatest attention. The Indian economy with its rapid growth and the impact this exerts beyond our borders, is fast becoming an anchoring element in the region. We have articulated a policy in our neighbourhood that stresses the advantage of building networks of inter-connectivity, trade, and investment so that prosperity can be shared and that the region can benefit from India’s rapid economic growth and rising prosperity. We want to create an economic environment with our neighbours so that we can work together to fulfil our common objectives of economic development. A peaceful neighbourhood is mandatory for the realization of our own vision of economic growth.

The close and contiguous geographies we share with our seven neighbours who together with us make up the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation or SAARC, compel increasing acknowledgement and recognition of the common destiny we share when it comes to issues such as food security, health, poverty alleviation, climate change, disaster management, women’s empowerment, and economic development. Today, with sustained high economic growth rates over the past decade, India is in a better position to offer a significant stake to our neighbours in our own prosperity and growth. We have made unilateral gestures and extended economic concessions such as the facility of duty free access to Indian market for imports from Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. We have put forward proposals multilaterally within the framework of the SAARC where we have assumed asymmetric responsibilities.


However, our vision of an enhanced South Asian cooperation for development is challenged by violent extremism and terrorism, which originates in our region and finds sustenance and sanctuary there. Terrorists have repeatedly sought to undermine our sovereignty, security and economic progress, aided and abetted by forces beyond our borders. Terrorist attacks on our embassy in Kabul and the horrendous Mumbai attacks of November 2008 once again demonstrated the barbaric face of terrorism. Terror groups implacably opposed to India continue to recruit, train and plot attacks from safe havens across our borders. There is increased infiltration from across the border. Open democratic societies such as India face particular challenges in combating the threat of terrorism. It is also clear that the threat from terrorism cannot be dealt with through national efforts alone. The global nature of the threat has been recognized widely. Global efforts to tackle the problem also need to be intensified. It is time that the international community works towards early adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that was tabled at the UN over a decade ago in 1996. We must act jointly and with determination to meet the challenges posed by terrorism and to defend the values of pluralism, freedom, peaceful co-existence and the rule of law.

Our relationship with Pakistan has been complicated by the issue of terrorism and the need for Pakistan to take ameliorative action to eradicate terrorism against India. Despite this threat, we understand well the Kautilyan advice that a great power loses stature if it remains bogged down in neighbourhood entanglements. We are determined to persevere in our dialogue with Pakistan in order to resolve outstanding issues so that our region will be stable, and so that the rationale of economic development in an atmosphere of peace, for all of South Asia remains our steadfast goal.


Let me briefly also speak about Afghanistan. We are supportive of the US efforts to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and to bring stability there. We have a direct interest in Afghanistan, not because we see it as a theatre of rivalry with Pakistan but because of the growing fusion of terrorist groups that operate from Afghanistan and Pakistan and their activities in India. Indeed, developments in Afghanistan over the past few years have demonstrated in ample measure that peace, security and prosperity in today’s world is indivisible, and that therefore, the international community in Afghanistan must stay the course.

Indian assistance to Afghanistan amounting to over US$ 1.3 billion has helped build vital civil infrastructure, develop human resources and capacity in the areas of education, health, agriculture, rural development, etc. Our development partnership, which has received wide appreciation of the Afghan people, has been guided primarily by the needs of the Afghan government and people. We stand by this commitment despite the grave threat under which our personnel and people are working in Afghanistan to transform the lives of ordinary Afghan people.


China is our largest neighbor and the rise of China is a reality that faces the entire world, today. The question asked is whether our relationship with China will be one dominated by increasing competition for influence and for resources as our economic needs grow. I believe the proposition should not be exaggerated in a way that it overshadows all attempts to rationalize the relationship between India and China. The reality is that India and China have worked hard over the last two decades to deepen dialogue and bilateral relations in a number of fields. Peace and tranquility have prevailed in the India-China border areas, despite the unsettled boundary question. Our trade with China is growing faster than that with any other country. Therefore, we need not see our relations with China as being only competitive. The complicated history of the outstanding boundary question entails that discussions to resolve it cannot be of short duration with easy fixes. As our Prime Minister has said, India and China will continue to grow, simultaneously, and our policies will have to cater to this emerging reality. China’s growing ability to project its military strength, its rapid military modernization, and its very visible economic capabilities, introduce a new calculus in the security situation in our region. We are also alert to the continuing and close security relationship between China and Pakistan. These factors serve to further underscore the complexity of the India-China equation, today.


This brings me to global and regional commons that surround us. India is an Indian Ocean country. The Indian Ocean has a palpable human dimension, as one Indian strategic analyst put it recently, given the fact that millions of people from Saudi Arabia to India to Indonesia, live in close proximity of the Ocean. The demography of its littoral States and the hydrocarbon energy index associated with it give the Indian Ocean a distinctive identity. The strategic relevance of this area derives from the vast hydrocarbon resources in West Asia, the connectivity provided by the Suez-Malacca route, and the geo-political imperatives flowing from this reality. Non-state threats to maritime security are also on the rise from piracy and smuggling. All major powers today have a vested interest in keeping the sea lanes open given the demands of trade, commerce and energy flows that will only increase in coming years. Dialogue and cooperation are thereby essential to evolve a stable transparent maritime security system so as to ensure that a cooperative framework is evolved for the management of the Indian Ocean and its resources.


It is a well-accepted fact that the world is witnessing a shift of economic and political power to Asia. We believe that there is a need to evolve a balanced, open and inclusive framework for Asian countries and major non-Asian players to interact and cooperate to address traditional and non-traditional security challenges. Our “Look East” policy, articulated in 1992, has enabled us over the past two decades to integrate our geo-economic space with our neighbours in South East Asia. The ASEAN Regional Forum has provided a useful model for such cooperation based on dialogue and consensus in diverse areas such as counter terrorism, trans-national crimes, maritime security, disaster relief, pandemics and nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Our participation in events such as the East Asia Summit has enhanced our role in our continent, which in turn influences our global role today. As the world witnesses the resurgence of China and India, and the balance of global political and economic power shifts to Asia, we are determined to ensure that there is more interaction between India and South East Asia and East Asia. The new, transnational dimensions of regional security also demand that we build an open, inclusive, plural and flexible architecture to deal with them.

Rules of the road are also required for managing the security of the global commons – which cover outer space, our oceans, cyberspace and global transport and communication networks. New dimensions of security like cyber security require to be addressed internationally especially since information technology has become critical to our needs in development, infrastructure, defence and security.


Coming to the central themes of India’s global role today, the focus is naturally directed at India’s participation in the architecture of global governance, as represented by the United Nations. Our priority in upholding the United Nations system has been a leitmotif of our foreign policy and our global role. However, the world today is a very different one from that at the end of the Second World War. In the United Nations system, there is today a majority view in favour of reform of the United Nations, and especially its major organs like the Security Council, which is responsible for collective peace and security. India has been at the forefront of this move, seeking an enhanced global role as a permanent member of the reformed Security Council, commensurate with its size, capabilities, contribution to UN peacekeeping operations and impeccable track record in upholding the UN system. On global economic issues, India has worked with our international partners to address the complex challenges to revive the global economy. The 2008 global economic and financial crisis triggered the further evolution of the G20, of which India is a key constituent. At the Pittsburgh Summit, the G-20 was designated as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. We see the G-20 process as a move towards a more representative mechanism to manage global economic and financial issues. The Group has taken some positive steps in this direction, for instance by committing a shift in IMF quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries. Simultaneously, the new global realities require that we revisit and reorganize existing governance models which were put in place over six decades ago.


India is often mentioned in the context of the ongoing Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations being conducted in the WTO. Our commitment to the WTO, which we joined as a founder-member in January 1995, is rooted in our global approach to international trade. India was one of the 23 original members of the GATT, which preceded the WTO, and played an influential role in shaping the non-discriminatory, equitable, rule-based system that the WTO today represents. It is a measure of our commitment to this vision that in September 2009, India took the initiative to convene a mini-Ministerial meeting of WTO members in New Delhi to break the deadlock in the negotiating process, which has resumed in Geneva since last December. Even as we discuss the shape of the next era of integration of world markets, India is proactive in upholding the integrity of the WTO system, inspiring other countries to join her in implementing the objectives of the WTO Agreement.


A major issue facing the international community today is climate change. The issue is critical for us as the steps we take will need to be intrinsically linked with the growth prospects and development aspirations for our people. Nationally, we have taken several steps to improve energy efficiency and ensure sustainable growth. It is important to note that despite our accounting for 17% of the global population, our own GHG emissions are currently only 4% of the global emissions. Even with 8-9% growth per annum, our energy use has been growing at less than 4% per annum. We are concerned that the developed countries often tend to ignore, implicitly, the huge adaptation challenge that we face with climate change. Today we spend 2% to 2.5% of our GDP on meeting adaptation needs, but this is not adequate. There is need for stable and predictable financing from the developed countries, and this we believe should not solely rely on market mechanisms but, rather, on assessed contributions. There is also need for a global mechanism whereby climate friendly technologies can be disseminated to the developing countries. We need to redouble efforts in these multilateral negotiations, especially after last year’s Copenhagen Conference, to ensure full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention and its Kyoto Protocol, and to conclude these negotiations with a balanced, comprehensive and above all, an equitable outcome, with equal emphasis on all four pillars – mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology transfer.


Many of you here today have followed the debates swirling around the agreement on civilian nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States signed in 2008. Some have sought to undermine this major initiative by calling into question India’s policy on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The constructive and forward-looking approach that was adopted towards India in September 2008 by the Nuclear Suppliers Group has enabled full international civil nuclear cooperation with India as also our nuclear energy cooperation agreements with major partners including the United States, Russia, France and the UK. These constitute not only a long overdue recognition of India’s standing as a country with advanced nuclear technology and responsible behaviour but have also opened up significant opportunities for technical collaboration. It is equally important to see the relevance of these developments in the context of India’s energy requirements and challenges of climate change.

I think it would be important to underline that India is fully cognizant of the safety and security implications arising from the expansion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We are working together with our partners to help reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. We believe that the challenges of nuclear terrorism and nuclear security have to be addressed. We have been affected by clandestine nuclear proliferation in our neighbourhood. We are naturally concerned about the possibility of nuclear terrorism given the security situation in our neighbourhood. We have, therefore, taken the lead at the UN General Assembly on an effective law-based international response including on WMD terrorism. India has joined the Russia-U.S. led Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The first Nuclear Security Summit hosted by President Obama in April 2010 was an important milestone in our efforts.


You are well aware of India’s long-standing commitment to global, non-discriminatory and verifiable nuclear disarmament. We have identified some initiatives that I believe could be explored further as building blocks of a new global, verifiable nuclear disarmament framework. These include: a global agreement on ‘no-first-use’ of nuclear-weapons and non-use against non-nuclear weapon states; measures to reduce nuclear danger through de-alerting, reducing salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and preventing unintentional or accidental use; a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction.


I also wish to briefly comment on our bilateral relations with the US. Despite being fellow democracies and sharing common values, we failed to realize the potential in our relations on account of differences during the cold war. That changed slowly in the nineties and gathered momentum in the first decade of this century. The conclusion of the bilateral civil nuclear agreement in 2008 was a major milestone. Today, the range and the depth of our bilateral relations and strategic global partnership is truly transformational in nature as described by Secretary Clinton. There are, as President Obama defines it, new wellsprings in our cooperation with each other. Today we are not only discussing issues such as strategic cooperation, counter terrorism, defence, high technology, civil nuclear and space sectors cooperation but also a broad range of development issues that directly and positively impact on the lives of our citizens including cooperation in education, health, agriculture, weather forecasting, innovation, etc. We are also engaging with each other and cooperating on most major global issues as also on capacity building in third countries. Ours is a defining and enduring partnership. This November, President Obama will visit India and we believe that this visit will enhance the depth of our understanding on a number of issues of vital importance, bilaterally, regionally, and globally.

I would not like to conclude without referring to the role of the growing Indian diaspora in the projection of India’s global, national and foreign policy interests. In countries like the United States, and the UK, the diaspora has increasingly demonstrated the effectiveness of its voice and its capability to advance the Indian interest. The projection of Indian power globally is in many ways energized by the demonstrable success and achievements of the diaspora.


Finally, India’s global role is also being articulated as it becomes an increasingly effective development and technical cooperation source for a number of countries in regions like Africa. Education, agriculture, capacity building in a number of areas, private sector investments, trade and communications outreach, define our relations with a number of African countries today. Apart from this, the unleashing of our managerial and entrepreneurial talent has also seen the expansion of Indian industry’s global horizons – with investment outflows from India to North America and Europe being around 14 billion US dollars in 2008 alone. The role of India’s soft power, the dynamism of its free and unfettered media, its entertainment industry, and the attraction that Indian culture exerts are also vehicles for enhancing India’s global influence today.


In sum, India’s global role today is determined by the calculus of our national interests, our interest in ensuring the flow of capital, technology and innovation to further accelerate our growth, our conviction that inclusive structures of dialogue and cooperation to address the new dimensions of security threats are necessary, that the institutions of global governance including the United Nations should reflect current realities, and that the dynamism and energy of the Indian economic growth story must be shared with our region, and that to sustain our growth trajectory we need an environment that is free from transnational threats like terrorism. India has consciously sought to engage and develop its partnerships with both its neighbours and also the major powers in this process, with the strategic aim of ensuring that the balance of interests thus created ensures that we are able to better deal with the challenges that confront us and that we derive tangible political, economic and security benefits as a result. In an Asia-centred century, we would naturally wish to ensure a role for India that is commensurate with its size, its growing economic strength, its democratic stability and proven capacity to manage its enormous diversity, its contributions to global peace and security, and its justified quest for a greater voice in a multilateral system that is balanced, equitable, and representative of new global realities.

Once again, I would like to thank Dr Sugata Bose and his colleagues at the South Asia Initiative at Harvard for having invited me to speak here this evening. Thank you.

Address by Foreign Secretary Smt. Nirupama Rao at South Asia Initiative, Harvard University

September 20, 2010

[Pulikeshi]

I believe the proposition should not be exaggerated in a way that it overshadows all attempts to rationalize the relationship between India and China.

Yes, rationalize (as in 'making excuses')

Good speech, but could not resist picking on that sentence.

[shukla]

TOI reports.. (posting in full)
Eye on Beijing, PM looks to woo Tokyo

With one eye firmly on China, PM Manmohan Singh on Sunday left for Japan on what is probaly the most significant attempt to emphasise and implement its Look East policy. In what was a clear giveaway, moments before his departure, Singh said China blocking export to Japan of rare earth metals, which is crucial for Japan's high-tech industry, was an opportunity for other countries to cooperate in this field with Tokyo.

Japan believes that China might be deliberately preventing such exports as ties between the two countries have hit rock-bottom owing to the crisis triggered by the arrest of a Chinese fishing boat captain by Japanese authorities near a disputed island in the East China Sea.

"This should be added incentive for many countries which have a potential to produce rare earths to take advantage of that opportunity," Singh told a group of Japanese journalists. He added though that India hoped that the two coutries would resolve the issue peacefully through diplomatic channels. China currently controls almost 90% of the rare earth global trade. India is among the top five producers of rare earth metals.

According to foreign policy experts, India's efforts to cement a strategic relationship with Japan couldn't have come at a better time as Tokyo is only now realising that its China policy is in a shambles. As former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal told TOI, the time is now favourable for India to build Japan as a bulwark against China's expansion as that is where Beijing can be "checkmated".

"What we are doing now is a strong manifestation of a trend which was already there. Japan's efforts to tie up China in a close economic relationship has not entirely succeeded and there is much greater concern over China's growth in both Japan and the US," said Sibal. He added that India's emergence as an important ally of the US, and their nuclear deal, was one of the incentives for Japan to shift its focus from South-East Asia and China.

While the deal for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries will not be signed during the visit, Singh said it would be a "win-win" deal once it is finalised. He said India is committed to maintaining a "unilateral and voluntary" moratorium on explosive nuclear testing and has "no intention" of revising that commitment.

The two sides are expected to announce on Monday the conclusion of talks for Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement or CEPA. Many believe even CEPA in its finalised form is a manifestation of India's urge to deepen its strategic relationship with Tokyo. While it opens up a huge market for Japan, which is reeling under a saturated Chinese market, it hasn't evoked any real commitment from Tokyo on opening up its labour sector for Indian workers.

"Japan is a major economic partner of India. We have embarked upon mega infrastructure projects with Japanese assistance which have the potential of transforming our economy. Our trade and economic relationship is set to enter a new phase," Singh said in a departure statement. On his way back, Singh will also pay an official visit to Malaysia before attending the 8th India-ASEAN summit and 5th East Asia summit in Hanoi. He is expected to meet his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao in Hanoi.

[abhishek_sharma]

Egypt says it voted for India for UNSC seat

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Egypt ... eat/705829

Ambassador of Egypt to India Khaled El Bakly has expressed “strong disappointment” on one of the items published in the Delhi Confidential column of The Indian Express on November 1 (“Who voted against India?”).

Denying the contents of the item that a large section of the MEA was convinced that Egypt was among the three countries which did not vote in favour of India becoming a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Ambassador, in a written statement, has said: “I wish to confirm that such information is baseless and incorrect, as Egypt did vote for India’s nomination, moreover it was one of the early countries to officially hail India’s election as non-permanent member of the UNSC.”

[putnanja]

A HOST OF FRIENDS - India must balance its relationships with a number of countries by Kanwal Sibal

[Vipul]

India elected to key UN committee.

UNITED NATIONS: India has been elected to a key committee that controls the purse strings of the United Nations, which has an annual budget of nearly $ 22 billion.

Namgya Khampa, serving in the Indian mission to the UN, was elected to the 16-member Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) for a three-year term.

"I'm feeling elated...it was a very good campaign... tough campaign and we came up on top," said Khampa, a First Secretary who had earlier served in Indian missions in China, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

ACABQ performs several functions including the examination of the budget submitted by the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly and advising the Assembly on administrative and budgetary matters referred to it.

Besides India, candidates from China, Japan and Pakistan all stood for the elections for the Asian region.

India got the highest number of 164 votes out of a total of 570, which according to Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN, is the highest number of votes received by a candidate.

"We all worked very hard on this," he said, adding, "This is one of the most coveted bodies of the UN because its members have ultimate responsibility for financial scrutiny (of the UN budget)."

China got 130 votes, Japan 147 and Pakistan received 114 out of a total of 555 votes cast, which left Pakistan out of the committee. Japan is the second largest monetary contributor to the UN after the United States.

India diplomats are excited about the win, which comes on the heels of the country's election to UN Security Council as a non-permanent member on October 12 with 187 votes, which Puri described as a "ringing endorsement."

Since then, India made it clear that it would be pushing to get a permanent Security Council seat as it serves its two year term beginning in January 2011.

[pgbhat]

^ more importantly....
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101106/j ... 145241.jsp

Uttarakhand-born Khampa, a Chinese speaker , topped today’s election by winning 164 out of 190 votes cast for three Asian seats in the ACABQ.

[abhishek_sharma]

Knowing what’s good for us

K Shankar Bajpai

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Knowi ... -us/728788

US President Barack Obama’s Parliament speech summed up the international attitude: welcome to the high table, now show us what you can bring to it. His Myanmar reference, howsoever irritating, underlines the complexities and dilemmas major powers face.

...

While that is beyond today’s India, we have a greater problem: we hardly know what our national interest is.

...

Drowning national needs in local politics, emotional or outdated ideological illusions, playing to the galleries or simple ignorance is mortally dangerous. Consider some random instances: Tamil Nadu’s parties competed to embarrass Delhi’s handling of Sri Lanka, states around Bangladesh connive at illegal immigration, UP has no thought for its responsibilities vis-à-vis Nepal. With visions so narrow, who cares about the security of the Persian Gulf or the stability of Central Asia?Take our permanent UNSC membership. India deserves it, but reform will take ages. The statesmanlike stance is: the entire international organisation system is out of date, and when recast, our UNSC rights must be incorporated, but until then let’s get on with life. Instead, immature yearning forces the government to make this a core national objective, wasting diplomatic capital on lollipops of empty support.A major world role means having to take positions on a variety of issues, inevitably upsetting someone. Our diplomats were renowned for straddling contradictions, but domestic pressures obviate professional skills.

...

One unforgettable illustration: our then foreign minister’s statement on the 1967 Middle East crisis. Given a carefully-worded draft, he succumbed to fears that Parliament would expect a bolt of thunder — one Arab ambassador asked why we wanted to outdo even the Arabs!Iran is a particularly telling case. Of course good relations are desirable, but adverse behaviour cannot be ignored. We get carried away by “civilisational ties” — as once by “2000 years of Sino-Indian friendship,” when we had virtually nothing to do with each other. History shows precious little Iranian benevolence towards us, periodic sackings of Delhi apart. True, Persia greatly influenced us — art, language, food, etc — we must also respect the sensitivities of our Shia population, reputedly second only to Iran’s. But are those reasons for ignoring Iran’s votes against us on Kashmir? We have consistently sought better ties, our IAEA vote was perfectly consistent with that approach. Iran tells us their Kashmir stand is not anti-Indian but part of a general policy; likewise, India is against proliferation, not Iran.

...

The writer is a former ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US, and chairman of the National Security Advisory Board.

[Singha]

WSJ

South Africa to Join BRIC to Boost Emerging Markets
December 25, 2010, 4:56 AM EST

By Nasreen Seria

(Updates with South Africa’s membership in other global forums in 12th paragraph.)

Dec. 24 (Bloomberg) -- South Africa has been formally asked to join the BRIC group of major emerging markets, comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China, bolstering its position as Africa’s champion.

Chinese President Hu Jintao wrote a letter to his South African counterpart, Jacob Zuma, to inform him of the decision and inviting him to the BRIC’s third heads of state meeting in Beijing next year, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said in a statement on his ministry’s website today.

South Africa, which has a population of 49 million compared with China’s 1.36 billion, is betting on raising its clout on the world stage by joining BRIC, while strengthening political and trade ties within the bloc. The country accounts for about a third of gross domestic product in sub-Saharan Africa and will offer BRIC members improved access to 1 billion consumers on the continent and mineral resources including oil and platinum.

Joining the group is “the best Christmas present ever,” South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane told a reporters in Pretoria today. “We will be a good gateway for the BRIC countries. While we may have a small population, we don’t just speak for South Africa, we speak for Africa as a whole.”

Zuma has made state visits to all of the BRIC nations since coming to power in May last year and the government has “lobbied very hard” to be included in the group, which will now be known as BRICS, Nkoana-Mashabane said.

‘Powerful Country’

Africa’s biggest economy is a “powerful country,” even though it’s small compared with the other BRIC nations, Alexei Vasiliev, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s envoy to Africa, said on Dec. 22.

South Africa has an economy of $286 billion, which is less than a quarter of that of Russia, the smallest of the BRIC nations. Its population is also dwarfed by India’s 1.2 billion, Brazil’s 191 million and Russia’s 142 million.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economist Jim O’Neill coined the BRIC term in 2001 to describe the four nations that he estimates will collectively equal the U.S. in economic size by 2020.

“South Africa’s economy is very small,” O’Neill, who is now chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management International, said in an interview from London today. “For South Africa to be treated as part of BRIC doesn’t make any sense to me. But South Africa as a representative of the African continent is a different story.”

‘Big Boys’

At their first summit in Russia in June last year, the BRIC heads of state called for emerging economies to have a greater voice in international financial institutions and for a more diversified global monetary system.

“South Africa as a country is small, but if we go there as a regional market, that’s a different story,” said Martyn Davies, chief executive officer of Johannesburg-based Frontier Advisory, which provides research and corporate finance services on emerging markets. “For South Africa, it’s nice to be associated with the big boys.”

South Africa is the only African nation represented in the Group of 20, and will take up a two-year seat on the United Nations’ Security Council along with India and Brazil next year, resulting in all BRIC nations being represented on the council. The African nation is also part of a trilateral group with India and Brazil, known as IBSA, created in 2003 to coordinate action between the three emerging economies in global forums.

“We bring the most diversified and most advanced economy on the continent,” said Nkoana-Mashabane. “We may not be the same size, but we can open up opportunities for them and through that, we can complete our economic integration on the continent.

South Africa’s rand gained against the dollar to its strongest level since Jan. 15, 2008, trading at 6.7308 to the dollar as of 5:13 p.m. Johannesburg time.

--With assistance from Yidi Zhao in Beijing and Henry Meyer in Moscow. Editors: Philip Sanders, Heather Langan, Andrew Atkinson, Antony Sguazzin

To contact the reporter on this story: Nasreen Seria in Johannesburg at [email protected].

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hirschberg at [email protected].

[krisna]

India is no longer the elephant in the room

The world is convinced that the emergence of India on the global scene is largely beneficial as India plays by the rules.
Bilateral relationships with India are now the building blocks of global governance, says T P Sreenivasan in his assessment of Indian foreign policy in 2010.

Perhaps the largest number of important foreign visitors came to India when sweeping changes took place in Delhi in 1977, 1980 and in 1998. There was always curiosity about Indian openness, just as there was curiosity about the Chinese enigma. But the visits in 2010 were not exploratory. They came to do business, to firm up long term relationships, to give and take. The balance sheet, in the end, was in favour of India.

India is no more the 'elephant in the room' in multilateral negotiations. Nor are we the peace makers or honest brokers anymore. We are the builders of coalitions, not in pursuit of some vague idealistic goals, but with clear political and economic objectives.

Combating terrorism is not a new priority for India. But it was never the touchstone of our bilateral relationships as it has become today. We have blown hot and cold even with Pakistan on this issue and tolerance of terrorism was no sin for our friends if they saw it as an instrument of freedom fighters. For fear of our anti-terrorist policy being construed as anti-Pakistan, we set the conclusion of a comprehensive convention against terrorism as our goal, which has eluded us even in the aftermath of 9/11.

Today, a country's position and policies towards Pakistan's trade in terrorism is a major factor in our bilateral relations. For this reason, the UK and Russia gained, the US and France won points and China failed in Indian eyes.

(only because of pakis trying to lit bums under their musharrafs made them open their eyes, so far dragon has escaped).

Pragmatism and clarity of purpose are visible in trade and environment also, though the path to be pursued appears confusing. We have begun to look at our own protective tendencies in return for major concessions from the rest of the industrial world. Even at the risk of diluting the principle of 'common, but differentiated responsibility' and the concept of per capita emissions, we have moved from no binding commitments to voluntary commitments on reduction of greenhouse gases, subject to international monitoring and verification.

Trying to be "a feel good article" about india.

[Pratyush]

PM's New Year resolution: Concentrate on the neighbourhood

NEW DELHI: After entertaining almost 25 heads of state and government in 2010, the Manmohan Singh government's New Year resolution is to concentrate attention on India's immediate neighbours, Indian Ocean and Africa in 2011. Top billing will be given to Nepal and Bangladesh, interestingly, not Pakistan.

Nepal is in a politically catatonic state, with neither the political parties nor the Maoists willing to work on a compromise, leaving the country with virtually no government. With a new ambassador, Jayant Prasad, ready to drive Indian policy in Kathmandu, India will try to push for "free and fair" elections in the Himalayan nation -- where the Maoists contest elections after disarming, so that nobody has an unfair advantage. That has to be the crux of the political deal in Kathmandu, but it has to be done by the Nepalis themselves.

Sources said, India has been approached by different shades of opinion in Nepal asking for intervention, but India continues to hold aloof, because active intervention doesn't make friends among the Nepalis. The foreign minister, SM Krishna is scheduled to visit Kathmandu soon __ after the Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai visits India next week. But the Indian message remains the same. Maoists have to disarm, following which there can be a political understanding. Bhattarai's visit will be important, for first-hand assessment of current Maoist thinking.

With Bangladesh, the news is a lot more positive. 2010 was a good year for the India-Bangladesh brief, largely due to the proactive role played by the Bangladeshis. In many respects, India has to step up to the plate in the coming year, follow through on the commitments made to Dhaka. Bangladesh wants greater economic openness by India, as well as an equitable agreement on border demarcation. All of this is doable, and at the highest level, the government has put the word out that Bangladesh gets priority. India is hoping to put high level visits by Krishna and perhaps even PM Manmohan Singh.

Pakistan prompts only dismal head shakes in the government. PM has no real maneuvering space on Pakistan, and Pakistan is not ready to play ball either. Yet India continues to get battered by the rest of the world to resume dialogue with Pakistan. Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi is scheduled to visit India, and is likely to do so in the next couple of months. But nobody makes any promises on any substantive movement with Pakistan. Of course, another terror attack of moderate intensity will sweep all bets off the table.

Manmohan Singh plans to correct his dismal record of engagement with Africa in 2011. An India-Africa summit is on the cards, though the venue in Africa is yet to be worked out, said sources. Moreover, South Africa is expected to host the IBSA (India, Brazil South Africa) summit in the coming year, and India should be able to plan a number of visits around this event. India has hosted numerous African leaders over the past couple of years, so "now we owe everybody a visit" observed a senior official.

After the Barack Obama visit, India and the US have pledged to work together in Africa. The contours of this engagement will revolve around a couple of things __ replicating India's green revolution experience in Africa and leap-frogging Africa's industrialization to make their exports more relevant in the 21st century. As a number of African leaders have told Singh, they didn't want their countries to be merely sources of raw materials for industrialized nations (read China). So development of capacities, capabilities etc will all be part of India's Africa outreach.

[Philip]

A similar programme should be conducted with our mandarins of the MEA,who talk a lot and deliver b*gger all!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 76163.html

Hague packs off British ambassadors – for lessons in the art of diplomacy
By Kim Sengupta, Diplomatic Correspondent

British embassy staff around the world are to get "diplomacy lessons" – or training in the pursuit of excellence – in extensive reforms being carried out by the Government, The Independent has learnt.

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, believes that essential diplomacy skills have been neglected in the past, such as obtaining the maximum advantage for the UK in negotiations with foreign states, as well as improving internal efficiencies.

The Government is said to feel that British diplomats have lost out to other states in securing, in particular, commercial advantage for the country.

The Coalition has also been critical of aspects of the prevailing culture within the UK's diplomatic community. Mr Cameron caused considerable resentment soon after coming to power, by telling 200 ambassadors, high commissioners and senior officials that they had to justify their "plush" lifestyle. Speaking about the diplomats to business leaders gathered at Downing Street for a drinks reception, the Prime Minister, with Nick Clegg at his side, said: "We made them all travel economy class, wherever they came from, I am pleased to say."

The Foreign Secretary said recently that an absence of focused foreign policy has led to "the reduction of this country's influence in the world. We have had governments that deal with issues like Iraq and Afghanistan, but no foreign policy. No one could describe the foreign policy of this country."

A Foreign Office spokesman said "Diplomatic excellence is the FCO's reform and modernisation programme for the next four years. The programme is designed to build up the traditional skills of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Secretary did not think enough emphasis had been given to this under the previous government."

[AjitK]

The war within MoD to MEA: propose, dispose

The next attempt was made in New York on the margins of the UNGA. This time the Indian delegation purportedly had the green signal to agree to talks on all issues. All New Delhi wanted to ensure was no structural similarity to the composite dialogue. Krishna’s counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi brought up plebiscite in Kashmir and this, it is believed, left no scope for a meeting in New York.

Yet, it’s learnt that the message from New Delhi was not to let the speech come in the way. It was, incidentally, Krishna who disagreed and took a decision there to hold back on talks. Officials conjecture that he was mindful of public opinion back home after Qureshi’s blistering anti-India address.

[krisna]

Raising multipolar stakes

Indeed, the slow transformation in India's relations with the world's most powerful nations is fast becoming apparent. India's foreign policy may be embarking on a new journey more in line with the demands of the age.

To understand the policy-in-the-making, it's first worth asking why India occupies a larger-than-life place in the international arena today, leading these major powers to it. Is it the scale of India's economy? Brazil, after all, has a larger economy yet garners a fraction of the newsprint. Is it India's democratic credentials? Unlikely. China's rise and its courting by the West have made democracy an overrated currency for influence. India's large and young population may have something to do with the attention, but it's still only a part of the answer.

In replacing historically accepted concepts of power based on economic strength (as typified today by the EU), military strength (such as Russia) or economic-military strength (the US and increasingly China), stakeholder power is rewriting the rules of the game. Such is India's footprint on so many transnational challenges - from climate change to pandemics to the international trade regime - that no table deciding on them would be complete without its presence. "Stakeholder power" may even explain India's rise far better than geopolitics ever will. India's and the world's growing awareness of this fact is expanding its presence in global governance structures, as seen in the endorsements for its bid for the UN Security Council in 2010.

Over the past decade, India has used its stakeholder power to reconfigure its relations with major powers. With the US it has turned a primarily trade-driven relationship into a strategic partnership. With Britain, it is trying to turn what was little more than a historical, cultural and people-to-people relationship into one based more on trade and economics with incrementally stronger security ties. With France, it is attempting to turn a nascent defence relationship since the 1980s into one based on trade. With Russia, as India saw aspects such as trade wither after the Soviet Union's fall, it has tried to manage a broad-based partnership's transformation into one based more on defence and strategic cooperation.
With China, the relationship has been the most complex and fluid. It's no secret the India-China relationship is so complex and rivalry so exaggerated by observers, that it will take a long time to overcome mutual distrust.

Looking ahead, India's intent is clear. It is turning "non-alignment" on its head. Without sacrificing the fundamental principle of not entering blocs or alliances, it is increasingly weaving closer ties with all the poles of the international system. Witness US-India security and strategic cooperation and one could mistake India as on its way to becoming a US ally. Studying India's collaboration with Russia in sensitive defence areas, one could be forgiven for reading a "bloc" into the relationship.

Without ritual, India is in the process of defining a doctrine of what may be called "omni-alignment".Omni-alignment is a conscious effort to identify the most relevant powers for the next half-century and to cultivate strong bilateral ties with each of them.

A nascent endeavour in Indian foreign policy, omni-alignment is well-suited to leverage India's stakeholder power. Ultimately, India's response to events over the new decade will determine whether this becomes a doctrine and an article of faith.

Feel good article, trying to answer about Indian foreign realtions.

[pgbhat]

stumbled upon photos of Indian diplomats on flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/menik/sets ... 66/detail/

Last pages are interesting.

[Stan_Savljevic]

The resemblance between Appunni Ramesh and Mukesh Ambani, JR Hiremath and Sushil Koirala is uncanny. Did someone post that Nirupama Rao, Mira Shankar and Meira Kumar are all from the same batch, 1973?

[shukla]

India Gathers Military Might
Analysis by Peter Custers - India's progressive relationship with the western world while continuing to maintain its relations with traditional ally Russia

[ramana]

The author didnt get the correct exposure in the Pak thread.....

EDITS | Friday, January 14, 2011 | Email | Print | | Back


A masterful forgery
January 14, 2011 11:53:18 PM

SUNANDA K DATTA-RAY

A ‘document' says Pakistan's elite is a mirror image of India's elite. But as we know, any mention of Kashmir unites Pakistan's civilian and military elite in jihadi battle.

A point of conversation when Ms Nirupama Rao meets her Pakistani opposite number in Thimphu could be a bizarre document that inadvertently suggests that high society in the two countries are a mirror image of each other. That apart, the clumsily forged “End 2010 summary analysis on Pakistan” exposes the Pakistani military’s fear of being ousted by the “incestuous club” of a “mostly secularised and Westernised” pro-Indian elite.

A Pakistani source sent the document to a British writer who forwarded it to me. Its ostensible author, India’s High Commissioner, Mr Sharat Sabharwal, seemingly gloats on nearing the fulfilment of the “aim” “to undermine” Pakistan “internally and externally with the intent to weaken it to such an extent, where it does not pose any further threat to India’s regional goals”. This assessment of New Delhi’s foreign policy is only to be expected. For, just as most Indians now see the ‘Foreign Hand’ — Mrs Indira Gandhi’s shorthand for the American Central Intelligence Agency — as Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, anything untoward in Pakistan is immediately put down to Indian machinations.

No one has suggested that the Research & Analysis Wing engineered the Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s threat to the ruling coalition, but other allegations are just as fanciful. As Mr Humayun Khan, the urbane Pakistani diplomat who was High Commissioner in New Delhi before becoming his country’s Foreign Secretary, once told me after denying every single charge about smuggling, gun-running and terrorism in an Indian White Paper, “And even if they were true, would you blame us after Bangladesh?”

But it’s the Pakistani interpretation of how an Indian diplomat views his country that is interesting, suggesting that the authors have copied lock, stock and barrel from some sociological analysis of India’s rich and powerful. Shades of Delhi’s “brat pack”, Pakistan’s “privileged” people{RAPE description follows!} are said to be so far above the law that “if you are part of this group you are never stopped by the police, if stopped you never have to go to the courts, if indicted you almost never go to prison”. With “an army of servants and facilitators”, these beneficiaries of “economic apartheid” never have to queue for anything. They enjoy “palatial residential developments, gated communities with private security … access to the best country clubs, hotels, restaurants and golf courses” and “an inside track to lucrative jobs and contracts”.

This milieu has no religious commitment or “intrinsic cultural values” even if it observes some religious-cultural rites. Having “lost its moorings and ideological underpinning” and living only for the moment, it shops and entertains more in Western and West Asian capitals than at home. The children attend premier English-medium schools and universities in the West “where they either end up staying or return only to work at the helm of family businesses or to lucrative jobs in the private or public sector”.

It sounds familiar though the bigger Indian equivalent of Pakistan’s “mercantile classes who want to protect and preserve their commercial and land interests” is expanding rapidly because high growth and electoral politics create more opportunities. In Pakistan, they still haven’t ventured too far beyond the 22 elite families listed in 1968.

Qualitatively, however, the two groups seem indistinguishable. The document’s mention of “the corruption of the political class and bureaucracy coupled with the extravagant lifestyles of the elite” might refer to the `1.76 lakh crore loss to the exchequer reportedly caused by the 2G Spectrum scam, Mr Mukesh Ambani’s $2 billion 27-storey architectural extravaganza or the conspicuous consumption and astronomical emoluments of corporate chiefs that Mr Manmohan Singh laments. Jessica Lall’s murder and the Arshad housing scam could have been in Pakistan.

This “culture of dependency” is expected to keep Pakistan “on the brink of bankruptcy and help (India) make significant inroads”. But is India itself such a formidable citadel? Even if nine per cent growth means India isn’t bankrupt, many Indians are. We might comfort ourselves that China is more intent on destroying Indian manufacturing through dumping than on making inroads (“significant” or otherwise) while Pakistani capability focusses on succouring terrorists, but we are best at undermining ourselves. With tycoons flitting around in private jets while peasants swallow pesticide, we don’t need American diplomats to tell us via WikiLeaks of the police’s “widespread use of torture in interrogations, rampant corruption, poor training, and general inability to conduct solid forensic investigations”. Or that policemen cut corners to avoid a “lagging justice system, which has approximately 13 judges per million people”. That was what the Bhagalpur blindings were all about.

Last week’s bloodshed in West Bengal again drew attention to what the Prime Minister has called the most serious internal threat to national security. Statistics about the Maoists cannot account for the large number of tribal peasant cultivators in central India who help them with food and shelter, infrastructural support and, above all, with their silence over rebel plans and movements. The ‘Red Corridor’ may have reversed Gen Gerald Templer’s Malayan strategy of poisoning the water in which terrorists swim. At one time Adivasis expressed dissatisfaction with authority by converting to Christianity. Now, they become Maoists.

So, nuclear-armed Pakistan doesn’t have much to fear. The forgery is a tactical ploy to discredit Pakistan’s “mostly Western and India-centric” civilian elite which is “nostalgic about being part of greater India and reaping the benefits of the economic boom” and is culturally susceptible to Bollywood’s appeal. These are tactical charges, like the praise Mr Sabharwal is made to lavish on the Army which has risen above a fragmented polity to become “one of the very few meritocracies in the country with an egalitarian ethic and continues to be mostly well led”. He calls Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani a “common soldier’s General” who “comes from a non-elite background” but “has transformed the Army in the last three years from its lowest ebb at the end of the Musharraf era, to where it is now again — an elite force commanding respect and veneration of the people”.


{Hosannas to the chief!. Shows they (the document forgers) think he is vulnerable!}

In short, Indians fear, respect and recognise the Pakistani Army as the only obstacle to their goal of destabilising and destroying Pakistan in order to dominate South Asia. All’s fair in love and war, and this is Pakistan’s never-ending internal war for power. But even the letter’s authors know that any mention of Kashmir always unites the civilian elite, however Bollywood-struck it might be, with the armed forces in jihadi battle.

--[email protected]

In the end he discredits the forger's worldview of divided Indians.
Good effort but could have been clearer without bringing in non-forgery facts.

Heart is in right place. Thats all we ask now.

[ramana]

C. RajaMohan in Ind Express

China's Stapled Visa unstaples its stand on Arunachal

With experts like him who say a PRC slap on the face is an affectionate pat on the cheek only a bit forceful, what to do!

Also note how like minded all his sources are!

[pgbhat]

UK questions India envoy immunity

Britain has asked India to waive diplomatic immunity for a senior diplomat who has been recalled to Delhi over reports he assaulted his wife.

Mr Verma's wife, Paromita, has remained in the UK with the couple's five-year-old son and is applying for leave to remain in the UK on humanitarian grounds, according to Britain's Mail on Sunday newspaper.

She was reportedly found with a bleeding nose after police were called to the couple's Golders Green home.

The domestic row reportedly started when the envoy found a Christmas tree in the house that had been given to them by one of his wife's relatives.

[ramana]

People are paying attention to India, whether Indians are paying attention or not!

Read the India specific articles in this site.

http://www.diplomaticourier.org/

[putnanja]

Colleague on board same flight to US blew whistle on ‘drunken’ IFS officer

...
Jha was clearly unaware of their presence, sources said, as he allegedly got inebriated, flaunted his credentials and New York assignment, as he misbehaved with at least three women passengers, including the crew who sought to intervene to bring the situation under control.
...
On reaching their destination, Jha’s diplomat colleague is said to have made an official complaint with the mission. This was corroborated a few days later when the alleged misbehaviour found a detailed mention in the flight crew’s report filed on the plane’s return to New Delhi.

Sources said Jha’s “drunken behaviour” was also on display at the Customs area at the JFK airport in New York prompting “a lot of talk” among the airport ground staff there.
...
..

[JE Menon]

He has been called back. Excellent. If the reports are true, he should never have gotten in, let alone been elevated to a senior position like that.

[Dhiman]

Jha, in Executive Class, was on his way to New York — on board Air India 101 — to join as First Secretary in India’s permanent mission there.

Executive Class???? And who was footing the bill for his executive class travel and drinking binge?

Jha was clearly unaware of their presence, sources said, as he allegedly got inebriated, flaunted his credentials and New York assignment, as he misbehaved with at least three women passengers

What a sense of entitlement these IFS ingrates have. Will definitely break new ground in corruption in years to come.

[JE Menon]

"these IFS ingrates"...

Boss not all are like this. There are plenty of very decent guys in the service. Fortunately, this one was spotted, and hopefully will be booted, before he could/can do any real damage (if the allegations are accurate).

[Sanku]

"these IFS ingrates"...

Boss not all are like this. There are plenty of very decent guys in the service. Fortunately, this one was spotted, and hopefully will be booted, before he could/can do any real damage (if the allegations are accurate).

Well the complainants themselves were fellow bureaucrats whom this boor did not know about. So clearly most are actually not like that.

[ramana]

Dhiman there are a few cads and a lot of honest hard working and brilliant people in the IFS. Lets not tar the whole service for the few.

[VinodTK]

The India-Indonesia Alignment

The long partnership between the two large democracies is deepening against the backdrop of a more menacing China.

India-Indonesia: Towards Strategic Convergence

[Dhiman]

If anyone is still not convinced that MEA is soundly sleeping, here is the proof:

From http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/3/2 ... -UNSC.html:

External Affairs Minister SM Krishna has become rage on Twitter after he inadvertently read out the wrong speech at a UN Security Council meeting.

On Friday night (US time), the minister was caught in a public gaffe when he, while speaking at the United Nations Security Council on a debate on security and development, read out Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado's speech for about five minutes before being corrected by India's envoy to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri.

Despite MEA’s efforts to gag the media, the social networking sites are not letting Krishna get away easily. While one Tweet - by @sudvoleti - says, “It was the best ever speech he ever made,” another one - by @sahasgulati - says, “Hahaha! Epic comedy this”.

However, not everyone is cracked up by the incident. A more serious Tweet by @javedrashid – says, “S M Krishna was pushing for security council reforms in UN. But after his act the urgent need is to push for Indian cabinet reforms.”

External Affairs Minister S M Krishna minutes after he read out thePortuguese foreign minister’s speech instead of his own

Krishna didn’t realise his error even when he read out, “On a more personal note, allow me to express my profound satisfaction regarding the happy coincidence of having two members of the Portuguese Speaking Countries, Brazil and Portugal, together here today.”

In his defence, he didn’t find anything amiss in this reference because Brazil holds the current presidency of the Security Council. But in another “happy coincidence” - if we may call it that – the exact words were spoken by his Portuguese counterpart a few minutes earlier.

After five minutes, when Krishna - who continued to look as thoughtful as ever - said, “The EU is also responding in this manner in coordination with the United Nations,” Puri, Indian’s envoy, intervened. “You can start again,” Puri politely told Krishna.

MEA Clarifies

Krishna’s faux pas has completely knocked out the mandarins of South Block. Explaining the gaffe, Krishna’s ministry said the initial parts of all formal addresses at the UN contain similar references and that he made substantive remarks from his prepared text.

Putting the blame squarely on the UN Secretariat’s shoulders, MEA officials pointed out that all prepared texts of speeches are handed to the UN Secretariat beforehand for circulation among audience.

“It is possible that there was a mix-up when copies were being prepared for delivery,” said an MEA source.

Speaking to Mirror from the US, Krishna's officer-on-special-duty Raghvendra Shastry said, “The error occured inadavertently.

Copy of the Portugese minister's speech was handed to Krishna by a UN official. It happened just before Krishna was about to deliver his speech.”

Diplomats, however, find the explanation laughable. “The minister must have gone throught the text at least once.

It is difficult to believe that he went on reading the text for five minutes till it was pointed out to him that it was a wrong speech,” said a diplomat.

[arun]

^^^ This is not the first time our External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has read out the wrong speech .

India Today reports that he has delivered the wrong speech on two earlier occasions though it must be said on those two occasions he did not attempt plagiarisation :

MINISTER'S SLIP ONE TOO MANY

During a meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Islamabad last July, S. M. Krishna reportedly read out from the background note. The note was meant to help him prepare for the meeting and was not part of the formal speech.

Krishna again committed a faux pas last year when a European Union dignitary was on a visit to India. He read the personal instructions meant for him, which are usually put in third person in brackets in the speech prepared by the ministry officials.

The URL is here:

Krishna hits a Portugese note in UNSC speech

[ManuT]

^ For next time, he needs colour coded sheets, to be sure. TSPians only have to slide their copy in front him and, no big deal, he will just read it out faithfully.

[Philip]

Who said that FM Krishna was asleep at the UN? On the contrary he was wide awake and like the good servant he is read what was put into his hand.So what if he read the Portugese envoy's speech,after all Goa was Portugese wasn't it? When contacted a spokesman for SMK alleged that this was all a conspiracy with a "foreign hand" behind (that quietly changed the speech) to besmirch India's (temp) entrance into the UNSC!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... ote]Indian foreign minister gives wrong speech to the UN

By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
SM Krishna brushed off his error

With India seeking to extend its global influence and secure a permanent place at the UN Security Council, it was perhaps only natural that the country's foreign minister would try and ensure his address to international delegates was as memorable as possible.

But when SM Krishna announced, "on a personal note", his satisfaction at seeing representatives from two Portuguese-speaking nations in his audience, an Indian official sitting alongside him realised something was wrong. Quickly, he stopped the minister and told him he should start again, only this time reading from his own speech, and not that of his Portuguese counterpart.

Quite how a red-faced Mr Krishna ended up reading from the speech of the Portuguese foreign minister, Luis Amado, rather than his own remains unclear. Officials have dismissed the embarrassment and said copies of Mr Amado's speech had been handed out to delegates. As it was, when Mr Amado spoke, directly before the Indian minister, he did not stick to his prepared speech and extemporised. They said that the introduction of Mr Amado's speech was very general and could have been delivered by any delegate.

But reports suggest that when Mr Krishna began speaking, many became immediately aware something was wrong as several lines appeared out of place. As it was, he spoke for a full three minutes – even talking about the actions of the European Union – before he was stopped by the Indian official who pointed out his mistake.

The 78-year-old minister has sought to brush off the faux pas. "Unfortunately, it happened," he told reporters. "There was nothing wrong in it. There were so many papers spread in front of me so by mistake the wrong speech was taken out."

Opponents have seized on the affair and demanded that Mr Krishna be sacked for what they describe as bringing shame to the nation. They say last Friday's speech was particularly important because it was the minister's first address to the world body since India took up a rotating position on the Security Council. At the very least, the incident showed that Mr Krishna had not bothered to properly read his speech in advance, or else he would have become aware of the error.

"Was it negligence or a mistake? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should explain to the nation why and how it happened at a world forum and he should also explain what are the steps being taken in this regard," Venkaiah Naidu, a senior member of the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, told reporters. He claimed Mr Krishna had lost his "moral right" to represent the country, adding: "It was a glaring example of how this government is functioning and how ministers are working."

Reports suggest this is not the first time Mr Krishna had made a mess of delivering diplomatic addresses. Last year in Islamabad, during a meeting with his Pakistan counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi, he read out material from a background note that had been prepared to help him with the meeting. At a meeting with EU delegates in Delhi, he similarly read from personal instructions prepared for him and not intended to be shared publicly.

With a population of 1.2 billion people and growing regional and economic influence, India has steadily been campaigning for a reform of the Security Council that would result in a permanent seat for Delhi.

Last November its demands received the backing of US President Barack Obama, who, during a speech in the Indian parliament, declared to rapturous applause: "The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member
[/quote]

PS:How our stature has fallen at the UN.From the sublime,Krishna Menon,to the ridiculous,SM Krishna!
We must thank Br.(butler) Man Mubarak Singh for his excellent choice in picking prize buffoon SMK to enliven the UN's notoriously dull proceedings.I am sure that we will now sail through in obtaining our UNSC seat as the P-5 will surely demand India;s inclusion and that they be continually entertained by India's prize buffoon SMK with future gaffes to come!

[Vikas]

^ Aren't you making mountain of the molehill Philip. Such gaffe's do happen across the world.
Remember Dubya talking to his background prompter. I think we have have become far too critical on anything and everything.
Certain things bring wry smile to the face and Life goes on.

[ramana]

MEA has drafting errors and now speech errors. Something is missing. Rigor and zest for the job.

[sum]

^^ Not sure where else to post this:
India's envoy in Turkey dies of cancer

India's ambassador to Turkey Raminder Singh Jassal Friday died in Ankara due to cancer, the second Indian envoy killed by the deadly disease in the last one year.

Cancer had claimed Arif Khan, India's then ambassador to Italy, in February last year.
"We deeply mourn the passing of Raminder Jassal our Ambassador in Turkey. Dear friend and brilliant colleague," Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said.

Jassal has been as India's ambassador in Ankara since 2008.A 1976-batch IFS officer, Jassal's diplomatic career spanned important postings as India's ambassador to Israel and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington.

As a member of the Indian negotiating team for the landmark India-US civil nuclear deal, the veteran diplomat played an important role in the transformation of the India-US relations during his stint as the deputy chief of mission in Washington.

Jassal was India's public face as spokesperson of the external affairs ministry during India's 1999 military confrontation with Pakistan, known as the Kargil conflict.

He served as joint secretary and spokesperson of the external affairs ministry from 1999 to 2001.

[Rupesh]

IIRC he was the spokesperson during Kargil war.

RIP sir

[abhishek_sharma]

Why it's too soon to give Brazil and India permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _the_brics

[ramana]

X-post...

>>>“Along with Principal Secretary TKA Nair, Narayanan constitutes what is now a Keralite ‘mafia’ in the PMO. In a bureaucratic culture dominated by North Indian Hindi speakers, this Keralite lock on the PM's inner bureaucratic circle represents something of an anomaly, which could in the long term create new faultlines around the Prime Minister.”

Rather than slyness, it suggests a fairly comprehensive lack of understanding, not to mention an inherent contradiction in what he says. First let's look at the contradiction...

He says the Keralites have a "lock" on the PMO, which is in fact laughable, but let's assume it's true. Then he says MKN was opposed to kissing up to the Pakisatans. And then he says this might create faultlines. Meaning what? That the Keralites in the PMO, of which undoubtedly MKN is/was the doyen, opposed talks with the Paks, and the rest of the people outside the PMO did not. This is clearly not the case. Then he talks about "long-term" faultlines... What the hell is that? PM is out in a few years. New PM, new PMO, new people.

What pisses them off, most probably, is that no one among the Mallus and others - despite the sweet talk all around - was willing to give an inch on the matter. Read between the lines, they were even determined to have a conclusive say in what exactly the US transmitted to Pakistan. It is pertinent, while we talk about sell-outs, etc., to keep this in mind. Nothing substantial is going to be given. There might be give (and take) on the "process" but nothing on the "substance". The only error, in my opinion, was the "Baluchistan" screw-up in Sharm - and this has been acknowledged all around including the people involved. Well, shit happens now and then. The fall-out has been minimised, if you look at it unemotionally.

Now about the "mafia" part. Although we have been alluding to this in another thread in the GDF, the reality is that no "mafia" stays for long. People come and go, are shifted here and there, all dependent on the political weathervane. It so happens that, at the moment, there is an accretion of Mallus around the senior ranks of the MEA, PMO, SoniaGs bureaucratic aides and to some extent a disproportionate representation (given the small population of the state) in other government bodies. What Mulford, and perhaps Roemer, fail to appreciate is that our system is very like their system in that respect - a bunch from Utah may be in the middle-ranks of the culinary institute in a disproportionate number. Or a humongous number of beltway insiders are from a particular area...

This can happen anywhere in a democratic set up. The problem would be if they try to re-engineer the system to impose an advantage along non-meritorious or non-democratic lines. Establishment Americans cannot believe, in other words, that Indians can be as democratically oriented as Americans - who will of course never do anything to perpetuate a "mafia" inside the beltway.

We need to recognise predisposition and ignorance when we see it. Occasionally, when required, we must also encourage it. No harm in letting them believe what they want to believe, if it is in our advantage.

Of course, we must be careful. The wikileak is a selected thing. We don't know exactly what else he said, and whether he mitigated his statement in later cables, or if he learned as he went along. In other words, this is not a post which aims to show Americans are idiots. Understanding between establishment elites is not a common thing, and rarely, if ever, complete.

[RamaY]

Why it's too soon to give Brazil and India permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _the_brics

That is 22ct BS article. What political power and international influence China had in 1970?