Indian Foreign Policy

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Aug 2015 13:18

As U.S. changes tack, India redraws UNSC bid - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu

The letters have been uploaded (http://thne.ws/unreform) for public reading, the first time countries have put their official positions on paper.

While the Chinese Ambassador wrote that China wants “small and medium-sized countries” to “take turns to serve in the Security Council”, the Russian Ambassador made it clear that none of the current members’ powers would change, saying: “The prerogatives of the current Permanent Members of the Security Council, including the use of veto, should remain intact under any variant of the council reform.”

Sources said the government was particularly surprised by the letter of U.S. Ambassador Samantha Powers that said the U.S. was “open to a modest expansion” of the membership, and wanted specific countries that would be considered to be named in advance, thereby rejecting the current text-based process that India had been pushing for. “This document puts into doubt everything the U.S. has conveyed to India bilaterally on the issue,” one diplomat told The Hindu.

The India-U.S. Joint Statement issued during President Barack Obama’s visit in January said: “President Obama reaffirmed his support for a reformed U.N. Security Council with India as a permanent member.” However, unlike countries such as Kazakhstan and Romania, which specifically mentioned India as their approved candidate for the seat, the U.S. made no mention of India. Of particular concern is the U.S. Ambassador’s statement that “It is critical that any reform proposal enjoy broad consensus among member states,” as that mirrors the position of a group of 13 countries, including Pakistan, called the Uniting for Consensus Group.

Things could go down to the wire in the next few weeks as it is imperative that the consolidated document uploaded by the President of the General Assembly, Sam Kutesa, at least be accepted by the countries as a basis for discussing UN reform next year. Negotiations over reform and expansion of the U.N. Security Council have run on for more than seven years, and Indian officials feel that the fact that countries have committed to positions is a positive development for the process. If, however, one of the P-5 countries — for instance, China — decides to veto a resolution to accept the document, India’s hopes for a permanent seat in the near future will be in danger. “We would be back to square one unless that happens,” an official said.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Aug 2015 13:38

India doesn't need to kiss Uncle Sam's backside,we need to firmly kick its backside!

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 15 Aug 2015 18:28

Keeping these Jokers from the Honorable Supreme Court aside,

Aadhar card not mandatory, says Supreme Court

In the lull, India should extend this facility to all SAARC nations, with their own domains. Hopefully all visitors are being on-boarded through biometric process at the port of entry even if they avail visa-on-arrival scheme.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Aug 2015 01:21

Philip wrote:India doesn't need to kiss Uncle Sam's backside,we need to firmly kick its backside!

You know Russia has taken the same position, right?

srin · Post by **srin** » 16 Aug 2015 15:35

Seat on the UN security council is a dead-end. It doesn't matter what the world thinks, what matters is only what the 5 veto-wielding powers think. It isn't about fairness - it is about self interest. And it isn't in their self interest to add someone else on the UNSC who isn't going vote along with them nor do they want India to diminish them. India isn't a lackey of US/Russia/China and it is an ascendent power compared to UK/France. So ... not going to happen.

Only thing that matters - how desperate are we to be on it ? This crazy begging for support UNSC seat is kinda useless. Real powers don't beg. They gate-crash uninvited.

UN, IMF and WB are all modelled on post-worldwar world, and not on modern times. We need to give them a chance - reform or become irrelevant. Everybody other than the ruling powers would love to contribute to their downfall, provided there is a better alternative. So, we give them the alternative.

Create a parallel organization with big population countries and aspiring UNSC candidates - Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, South America. Voting rights is on basis of population. Not a chai-biscoot party called NAM.
Create an agenda that makes sense - maybe vaccination, drugs, peacekeeping, whatever.

Get the developed countries not on UNSC (japan, germany) ... Meanwhile, work within UN system to make it ineffective or corrupt. They will capitulate in some 20-30 years.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 16 Aug 2015 16:08

srin wrote:Seat on the UN security council is a dead-end. It doesn't matter what the world thinks, what matters is only what the 5 veto-wielding powers think. It isn't about fairness - it is about self interest. And it isn't in their self interest to add someone else on the UNSC who isn't going vote along with them nor do they want India to diminish them. India isn't a lackey of US/Russia/China and it is an ascendent power compared to UK/France. So ... not going to happen.

Only thing that matters - how desperate are we to be on it ? This crazy begging for support UNSC seat is kinda useless. Real powers don't beg. They gate-crash uninvited.

UN, IMF and WB are all modelled on post-worldwar world, and not on modern times. We need to give them a chance - reform or become irrelevant. Everybody other than the ruling powers would love to contribute to their downfall, provided there is a better alternative. So, we give them the alternative.

Create a parallel organization with big population countries and aspiring UNSC candidates - Brazil, Nigeria, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, South America. Voting rights is on basis of population. Not a chai-biscoot party called NAM.
Create an agenda that makes sense - maybe vaccination, drugs, peacekeeping, whatever.

Get the developed countries not on UNSC (japan, germany) ... Meanwhile, work within UN system to make it ineffective or corrupt. They will capitulate in some 20-30 years.

We have overtaken one of the Permanent members in GDP recently - Russia. We will likely overtake UK and France within the next 5 years. That would be the right time to start an alternate organization if UN reform does not move towards our liking.

20 - 30 years is too long. I would put my money on India being on the permanent list within the next 10 - 15 years.

srin · Post by **srin** » 16 Aug 2015 17:06

Arjun wrote: We have overtaken one of the Permanent members in GDP recently - Russia. We will likely overtake UK and France within the next 5 years. That would be the right time to start an alternate organization if UN reform does not move towards our liking.

20 - 30 years is too long. I would put my money on India being on the permanent list within the next 10 - 15 years.

All the more reason they will not allow us into the nice cosy club. It is the only thing of importance they are clinging to.

Also, being in the UNSC means you get bribed a lot for favourable vote. Why would they want to share with additional people ?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 16 Aug 2015 17:32

srin wrote:All the more reason they will not allow us into the nice cosy club. It is the only thing of importance they are clinging to.

Also, being in the UNSC means you get bribed a lot for favourable vote. Why would they want to share with additional people ?

The incongruity of not having India would become quite glaring by 2020. Also I am suggesting India take the lead in a parallel organization around that time - to add a 'push factor'.

muraliravi · Post by **muraliravi** » 16 Aug 2015 17:51

Arjun wrote: We have overtaken one of the Permanent members in GDP recently - Russia. We will likely overtake UK and France within the next 5 years. That would be the right time to start an alternate organization if UN reform does not move towards our liking.

20 - 30 years is too long. I would put my money on India being on the permanent list within the next 10 - 15 years.

Since when did GDP become the barometer for being part of the security council, they will never follow such rules (by that logic Japan should have been part all along). Until and unless we make our weapons (designed in India by Indian engineers and manufactured by Indian owned Indian origin companies on Indian soil), we cannot even dream of that status. So what if we start our own org and withdraw from UN, I dont think that will mean much. We give ourselves too much credit.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 16 Aug 2015 18:40

muraliravi wrote:Since when did GDP become the barometer for being part of the security council, they will never follow such rules (by that logic Japan should have been part all along). Until and unless we make our weapons (designed in India by Indian engineers and manufactured by Indian owned Indian origin companies on Indian soil), we cannot even dream of that status. So what if we start our own org and withdraw from UN, I dont think that will mean much. We give ourselves too much credit.

That we should do in any case...But end results would take at least a couple of decades or more for any visible change on high-end defense equipment manufacture. I estimate UN reform to happen faster than that.

India needs to use all necessary levers - and bargaining power on most of these levers is proportional to GDP.

Japan and Germany are suffering from the sins of WW2 - so I wouldn't drag in those names.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Aug 2015 00:13

http://twocircles.net/2015aug16/1439736153.html
Modi’s leap of vision: Is India ready for a larger role?

Raja Mohan says Modi's practice of foreign policy, much to everyone's surprise since he had no previous experience in it, has been "purposeful and consequential" and it was more than just imparting energy - he made 18 foreign visits in the first year of power - but was also about following continuity with some subtle changes in orientation that appeared to lend the policy a more defined and a sharper edge.

According to him, Modi put his personal stamp on four issues:

- discarding defensiveness on global issues, shedding some past certitudes on multilateralism and beginning to alter the way that India looks at global problems;

- overruled long-standing political objections in Delhi to expanding economic cooperation with China, going so far as to to compel the security establishment to liberalise visa rules;

- Bypassing Pakistan to endorse sub-regional cooperation by signing the significant BBIN treaty between India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh;

- and, overruling opposition within his own party to go ahead with the contentious land boundary agreement with Bangladesh that the previous government lacked the political capital to conclude.

What is Modi's foreign policy vision? Although he himself is yet to articulate it in parliament or elsewhere, two recent policy addresses, one by National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, and the other by Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar, provide some interesting insights to his and the government's thinking.

Doval made two interesting observations that reflect in many ways the changed thinking of the Indian establishment. One, weak states invite trouble and hence, to demonstrate one is a strong state, one must not hesitate to exercise power. Two, there is little place for morality in international affairs. Nations must take recourse to any means to protect itself, including having to take recourse to capital punishment (in allusion to the debate on the hanging of Yakub Memon) and cannot subjugate the state’s interest to "individual morality" in the larger interest of society.

He also said India was punching below its weight and India should now "improve our weight and punch proportionately".

Jaishanker's speech at Singapore was even more revealing. He talked about changes in India's foreign policy being the "sharpest in the last year" and that "energetic diiplomacy" (by the prime minister) has resulted in India leaving "leaving larger and deeper footprints in the world" and being ready to shoulder "greater global responsibilities".

He made another interesting observation - that India's future lay in being a human resources power, rather than a military or an economic power, and it should be seen by the rest of the world, including the US and China, as an opportunity rather than an investment-risky country. He said the deepening and broadening of ties with the US were among the "key elements of a changing Asian calculus", a point that has been belaboured by the US in recent times.

That then, as Raja Mohan points out, is where Modi undertook a "definitive reframing of India's foreign policy" in defining a new international identity for India as a "leading power" and has overrulled the "reluctance of its political class to think about the world in strategic terms" and assume "a leadership role".

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 17 Aug 2015 00:15

Worth a read:
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/dpiKVSV ... unity.html
"UNSC: Misreading an opportunity

Tantamount to reading a peace proposal as a declaration of war, some news reports suggest that India’s chances for a UNSC seat have been scuppered "

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 17 Aug 2015 02:28

Arjun wrote: We have overtaken one of the Permanent members in GDP recently - Russia. We will likely overtake UK and France within the next 5 years. That would be the right time to start an alternate organization if UN reform does not move towards our liking.

20 - 30 years is too long. I would put my money on India being on the permanent list within the next 10 - 15 years.

A_Gupta wrote: UNSC: Misreading an opportunity

The only question is whether India should remain within the G-4 or make a solo bid. In this instance, India’s chances are better if its stands apart rather than together with the G-4.

Couple of quick points:

India should pursue an attempt to get into the UNSC even if it finally fails. I think a non-veto membership is a failure - anything beyond G-4 in UNSC is also a failure. India not being in UNSC is definitely a failure.
GDP and peace keeping efforts, etc. are all great peripheral points. India is a fulcrum state, the UNSC will become even more imbalanced and out of touch with reality if India's inclusion does not happen in a 5yr timeframe.
India should expect some quid pro quo with G-3 in G-4 to stay with them in a bid. If that test fails, it is perhaps better to go solo. Previous experience suggests it is futile to worry about others esp. if they are like China.
Finally, India should start and make even sharper strategic blocs of her own in the West and East Asian regions.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 17 Aug 2015 02:31

France seat should go to Germany.

UK seat to India.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 17 Aug 2015 02:54

Another possibility is Germany, UK, France get 1/3 of veto power each for one EU membership. Then the remaining seat that is created after the merger of UK anf France seats will go to India.

Let those three countries act in the collective interest of Europe.

If need be China, India, and Japan will have 1/3 veto power each representing Asia.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Aug 2015 03:01

ramana wrote:France seat should go to Germany.

UK seat to India.

Right now lot of lobbying is going on.

Money is being used by many countries and group of countries to prevent expansion of UNSC. Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement, nicknamed the Coffee Club to prevent expansion of UNSC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus

India is being targeted by many countries including this coffee club. But India has a broader support among many nations for the seat.

The ups and downs of the support from the US, Russia and CHina is due to this haggling going on

The geopolitical moves and geo economic changes are a result of this lobbying and watch the republican candidates for president for clues to the changes in the policy.
See if there is a Chinese opposition to the Trump Candidacy

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 17 Aug 2015 04:26

Isn't Ms. Clinton the presumed next US president? So what does it matter what people think of Trump? So Wilsonians ("the league of nations" faction of the UN) will win in UN as well. That means no cigar for India at least for the next four years. After that if Ms. Clinton fails spectacularly (as is expected by many) will there be another dem president? In any case ass and elephant are distinct without a difference.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Aug 2015 04:40

vayu tuvan wrote:Isn't Ms. Clinton the presumed next US president? So what does it matter what people think of Trump? So Wilsonians ("the league of nations" faction of the UN) will win in UN as well. That means no cigar for India at least for the next four years. After that if Ms. Clinton fails spectacularly (as is expected by many) will there be another dem president? In any case ass and elephant are distinct without a difference.

Chinese lobby has paid both sides for the last 25 years for pro china policy from US for trade, commerce and media support globally

Look for anyone who is willing to break out and change the policy.

Currency war is the first clue to change coming in the policies.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 17 Aug 2015 11:07

vasu raya wrote:Keeping these Jokers from the Honorable Supreme Court aside,

Aadhar card not mandatory, says Supreme Court

In the lull, India should extend this facility to all SAARC nations, with their own domains. Hopefully all visitors are being on-boarded through biometric process at the port of entry even if they avail visa-on-arrival scheme.

SC is right abt Aadhaar Card not being mandatory.NaMo should have gone for NPR and CIN proposed by NDA-I and replaced by Aadhaar by UPA just like FOIS replaced with RTI.

Biometric process for all new arrivals at all ports of entry for foreigners should be must irrespective of Visas. Once done , subsequent visits could be made easy.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Aug 2015 11:20

The iran visa stuff could be linked to the terrorist attack on israelis in Delhi. They acted in bad faith so we took security measures.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Aug 2015 16:18

UAE Allots Land To Build First Temple In Abu Dhabi

Modi thanked the UAE leadership for this "landmark" decision, reports PTI.

While there are two temples in Dubai, one of Lord Shiva and another of Krishna, there is none in Abu Dhabi.

"A long wait for the Indian community ends. On the occasion of PM's visit, UAE Govt decides to allot land for building a temple in Abu Dhabi," tweeted external affairs ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup.

Read more: http://in.sputniknews.com/south_asia/20 ... z3j4WIBJQK

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 17 Aug 2015 17:48

Karan M wrote: The iran visa stuff could be linked to the terrorist attack on israelis in Delhi. They acted in bad faith so we took security measures.

Yes, that is my recollection of events too.

srin · Post by **srin** » 17 Aug 2015 18:30

vayu tuvan wrote:Isn't Ms. Clinton the presumed next US president? So what does it matter what people think of Trump? So Wilsonians ("the league of nations" faction of the UN) will win in UN as well. That means no cigar for India at least for the next four years. After that if Ms. Clinton fails spectacularly (as is expected by many) will there be another dem president? In any case ass and elephant are distinct without a difference.

It doesn't matter for us.
- TSP will get their AMRAAMs to fight the terrorists
- We will get assurances of support for UNSC seats
- They will put us on TRIPS watch list
- The SD will criticise us for "violations of human rights" and "religious persecution"

In other words, business as usual

srin · Post by **srin** » 17 Aug 2015 18:34

muraliravi wrote:
Arjun wrote: We have overtaken one of the Permanent members in GDP recently - Russia. We will likely overtake UK and France within the next 5 years. That would be the right time to start an alternate organization if UN reform does not move towards our liking.

20 - 30 years is too long. I would put my money on India being on the permanent list within the next 10 - 15 years.
Since when did GDP become the barometer for being part of the security council, they will never follow such rules (by that logic Japan should have been part all along). Until and unless we make our weapons (designed in India by Indian engineers and manufactured by Indian owned Indian origin companies on Indian soil), we cannot even dream of that status. So what if we start our own org and withdraw from UN, I dont think that will mean much. We give ourselves too much credit.

Why should we withdraw from the UN ? That is the last thing we should do. It is similar to starting NDB when there is WB.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 18 Aug 2015 17:13

Alyssa Ayres on how cricket shows how India might assert its power, if it succeeds at its current transformation:
http://octavianreport.com/article/how-y ... -of-india/

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 18 Aug 2015 18:42

Pulikeshi wrote: Couple of quick points:

India should pursue an attempt to get into the UNSC even if it finally fails. I think a non-veto membership is a failure - anything beyond G-4 in UNSC is also a failure. India not being in UNSC is definitely a failure.

GDP and peace keeping efforts, etc. are all great peripheral points. India is a fulcrum state, the UNSC will become even more imbalanced and out of touch with reality if India's inclusion does not happen in a 5yr timeframe.

India should expect some quid pro quo with G-3 in G-4 to stay with them in a bid. If that test fails, it is perhaps better to go solo. Previous experience suggests it is futile to worry about others esp. if they are like China.

Finally, India should start and make even sharper strategic blocs of her own in the West and East Asian regions.

The best interests of the Chinese and American power elite is served by splitting the world on the lines of G2. What the could not do with Russia i.e. co-opt the leadership into their plans, they successfully did with China. The Chinese rise was facilitated by America. And now they are joined at the hips. Both die or both survive. The 7 out of 8 on G8 level are pro-USA. 16 out of 20 G20 members accept US dominance.

We got to cultivate our own institutions. We will never get a seat at the table where uncle sits and presides. We will get a seat only if we let uncle win the great game i.e. control of India.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 19 Aug 2015 06:30

panduranghari wrote: The best interests of the Chinese and American power elite is served by splitting the world on the lines of G2. The Chinese rise was facilitated by America. And now they are joined at the hips. Both die or both survive.

China's has risen - I call this the 'supernova' phenomenon - meaning humans see the light far later than the action having already taken place, much to their detriment. What anyone needs to manage now - is a China post emergence either in her decline or in her new status quo. US is in no way attached to the hip albeit, there is resource extraction which is one way to the advantage of the US today and not having any more resources to extract, could cause withdrawal. However, it would be a mistake, to assume they are co-dependent.

panduranghari wrote: We got to cultivate our own institutions. We will never get a seat at the table where uncle sits and presides. We will get a seat only if we let uncle win the great game i.e. control of India.

India has to cultivate her own security architecture in West and East Asia. What is happening now is positive, but not sufficient, in that all the East and West linkages have to happen under the blessing and tutelage of the usual mai bhaps. In order to actually do what is needed, Indian bureaucracy and diplomacy will have to scale and play at a much higher level. All said this means India will have to grow at a "Dharmic rate of growth"©
All very chicken and ande onlee

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Aug 2015 14:16

Sea Change - Bhaskar Balakrishnan, BusinessLine

Why India must do more for the Pacific islands

India is to host a summit with leaders from 14 members of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). The event, to be held in Jaipur on August 21, will be attended by 10 heads of state from the region. It has the potential to strengthen India’s relations with these countries. Though these countries are relatively small and distant from India, they offer several areas for fruitful cooperation.

In recent years, India has been seeking to build its relations with 14 of the PIF island countries, namely the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. India has participated in PIF meetings as one of the 17 dialogue partners (including US, EU and China).

The blue economy

The PIF was formed in 1999 as a successor to the South Pacific Forum of 1971. Australia and New Zealand, being much larger economies, have tended to dominate the PIF, and the 14 other island members have sought to diversify their relations, including with the major powers such as the US, China and Japan.

There is a degree of competition among the major powers for influence in the region. While the PIF countries have relatively small land areas, their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) encompasses fairly large areas of the ocean. The EEZ areas range from Kiribati (3.55 million sq km) to Samoa (120,000 sq km). Baselines and maritime boundaries have not been settled yet, though some progress has been made. There are 48 overlapping or shared EEZs which require negotiations to be settled.

The existence of large EEZs makes it important to optimally manage marine living and non-living resources. Management of fisheries and development of aquaculture and the “blue economy” are particularly important.

Regional cooperation has grown steadily under the aegis of the PIF. A trade agreement establishing a free trade area among 14 PIF countries has been signed by all except Palau and Marshall Islands. There is scope for making further progress in airline and telecommunications services to improve connectivity. The fact that these countries are separated by wide stretches of the Pacific makes logistics a challenge.

The road ahead

During Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Fiji in November 2014, India offered some major assistance projects. A Forum for India Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) was set up, and the forthcoming meeting in Jaipur is part of this process.

The projects offered include setting up of a special fund of $1 million for adapting to climate change, establishing a trade office in India and Pan Pacific Islands, e-network to improve digital connectivity. They also include extending visa on arrival at Indian airports for all the 14 Pacific Island countries, cooperation in space technology applications for improving the quality of life of the islands, and training to diplomats from Pacific Island countries.

Also, India has increased the annual grant-in-aid from $125,000 to $200,000 to each of the 14 Pacific countries for community projects, and launched a new Visitors Programme. These represent a significant upgrade in India’s relationship with the PIF countries.

There are certain issues that need attention. Implementation of projects offered by India should be improved by appropriate reforms in project management and financial approval processes. Indian diplomatic representation is weak and many of the PIF members are covered by non-resident Indian missions which are not able to make frequent visits. One approach could be to have in addition, Special Envoys from India for promoting bilateral relations with these countries.

The writer is a former ambassador

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 20 Aug 2015 19:24

chaanakya wrote:
vasu raya wrote:Keeping these Jokers from the Honorable Supreme Court aside,

Aadhar card not mandatory, says Supreme Court

In the lull, India should extend this facility to all SAARC nations, with their own domains. Hopefully all visitors are being on-boarded through biometric process at the port of entry even if they avail visa-on-arrival scheme.
SC is right abt Aadhaar Card not being mandatory.NaMo should have gone for NPR and CIN proposed by NDA-I and replaced by Aadhaar by UPA just like FOIS replaced with RTI.

Biometric process for all new arrivals at all ports of entry for foreigners should be must irrespective of Visas. Once done , subsequent visits could be made easy.

From a execution perspective about 30 crore people have been covered and still 2/3rds population to go, a debate cannot stall these activites as significant projects such as digital India would only be possible if we have the basics covered, the ITisation of govt. departments is a significant anti-corruption move and the tax net as of today is weak which impacts OROP as an example. SC taking 20 years to decide on a subject is a problem.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 20 Aug 2015 20:57

moved to Indian interests thread.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2015 21:45

AAdhar posts should continue in Indian Interests thread. Thanks, ramana

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Aug 2015 21:47

We need articles from ex Ambassadors like Bhaskar Balakrishnan.
The article is informative, short, no polemics and has specific recommendations for GOI and for public to understand.

Compare to MBK type tirades.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 20 Aug 2015 22:07

ramanaji, this MKB is a rather strange bird. He writes in a peculiar (yet familiar to mallus) malayalam journalistic style, which evolved first, in the newspaper where his dad worked, a long long time ago. It is some kind of Devil's Advocacy approach, so all angles are covered by the IFess types. This approach is apparently a well-tested option in DC/UQistan thinktanks. Mainly a left-liberal mode of dissection of issues and fuddy-duddy "empathising". I could never get it, though, being bought up in a plain old jingo mode.

Now there is this other gent, whose kid is (or was) a hi-falutin brofessor over in the khan city with tall buildings. He too is retired and writes..... That guy needs some watching. I heard an unpleasant story about an attempt at deal-making behind scenes.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Aug 2015 22:50

hnair wrote:ramanaji, this MKB is a rather strange bird. He writes in a peculiar (yet familiar to mallus) malayalam journalistic style, which evolved first, in the newspaper where his dad worked, a long long time ago. It is some kind of Devil's Advocacy approach, so all angles are covered by the IFess types. This approach is apparently a well-tested option in DC/UQistan thinktanks. Mainly a left-liberal mode of dissection of issues and fuddy-duddy "empathising". I could never get it, though, being bought up in a plain old jingo mode.

This is a kind of social engineering process. The opposing views are are deliberately highlighted which brings out the 'rebels' leftists to oppose the establishment. The 'rebels' will support the article, support the author thinking that the author is empathizing with them and a 'new' social movement is created. This kind of small rebel social movement is created just on the news reporting of this leftist kind everywhere and that culminates into a large social movement. The avaaz.org currently uses the email blasts to create such a global movement.

The 70s and 80s were the experiment ground in India for such news reporting with leftist trained to write in the english daily. Movement was To oppose first IG and then the Indian state and this morphed into anti-Hindu movement. This is one the brilliant social transformation done anywhere in the world.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Aug 2015 07:27

UNSC: India eyes support from Pacific Island nations - Smriti Kak Ramachandran, The Hindu

Support for India’s claims for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council will be high on the agenda at the second Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) summit that will be addressed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Jaipur on Friday.

On Thursday, addressing the heads of the Pacific Island nations who are in New Delhi for the summit, President Pranab Mukherjee said: “UNSC reform and expansion will be discussed and concrete proposals are expected to be considered in the forthcoming UNGA session next month. An inter-governmental negotiating text is already on the table, for which India needs their support.”

Of the 14 Pacific Island nations, 12 have a vote in the United Nations, and India asserts it has “firm stated commitment of support” from at least 10 of these. According to MEA sources, of these two countries (that are yet to back India’s claim) one supports the G4 resolution, which indirectly supports the Indian position, while the other is yet to announce its stand.

Culture connect

New Delhi is banking on old, cultural ties with these nations, especially Fiji, which wields considerable influence in the region, and has a significant percentage of population that is of Indian descent, to garner support.

“While there hasn’t been much coordination on issues at the U.N., we hope the FIPIC conference will see a strengthening of coordination on the U.N. floor,” High Commissioner of Fiji, Yogesh J. Karan told The Hindu . However, it remains to be seen which country the FIPIC block would choose if the vote came down to a contest between India and China {There is no direct contest between India & China} , which is a closer neighbour with heavy investments in infrastructure in the islands.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 23 Aug 2015 07:07

Foreign policy during 80's
http://indiadefenceforum.com/wp-content ... in-IOR.pdf

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 31 Aug 2015 07:27

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... ror-fight/

They want to waste taxpayer money to "push for UN reforms" and get India a UNSC seat All that will come out of this is free tickets to USA/New York for these MEA/IFS to make powerpoint presentations in the UN..that will all amount to a f@rt in a hurricane. It should be pretty clear now that every country is on its own when it comes to "Fighting terrorism" since it has been demonstrated that "terrorism" is relative. Paki terrorist scum are not actually terrorism in the eyes of all the UN security council members, so why would there be any consensus when it comes to fighting terrorism?

On a related note, if the GoI actually shares information and Intel with the US govt. in the name of "cooperation on terrorism". USA's databases are isolated even between different agencies, all that the US will provide is some filtered version of some database of some agency -- so a David Headley would never show up even with this "cooperation" in place, for example. This is all an american con job to get access to India's database with no reciprocation in mind.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Aug 2015 23:31

Tuvaluan wrote: On a related note, if the GoI actually shares information and Intel with the US govt. in the name of "cooperation on terrorism", then that would prove that we have a bunch of dimwits in charge in India. USA's databases are isolated even between different agencies, all that the US will provide is some filtered version of some database of some agency -- so a David Headley would never show up even with this "cooperation" in place, for example. This is all an american con job to get access to India's database with no reciprocation in mind.

India has to use only a filtered version of the database for external coop. No country allows foriegn countries to access their database

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 01 Sep 2015 06:11

svinayak wrote: India has to use only a filtered version of the database for external coop. No country allows foriegn countries to access their database

Which makes me ask, what is this "cooperation" all about? Is it even necessary? US has already demonstrated that it will not compromise the likes Headley even after it was known and proven that he committed terrorism in India. What exactly is India going to get out of this, if at all?

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 01 Sep 2015 06:27

Nothing. Perhaps some mafiosos living abroad. Not in the class of Dawood.