India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

[Falijee]

U.S. launch companies lobby to maintain ban on use of Indian rockets - See more at: http://spacenews.com/u-s-space-transport-companies-lobby-to-maintain-ban-on-use-of-indian-rockets

ARIS — The U.S. ambassador to India on Feb. 25 gave a speech celebrating the growing U.S.-India cooperation in space.
“In September 2015, for the first time India launched a U.S. satellite – well, actually four at once,” Ambassador Richard Verma said in prepared remarks to a space policy forum in New Delhi. “The satellites belonged to a U.S. company, and India launched them from its trusted workhorse – the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, which has launched satellites for 20 different countries. Other U.S. companies have sought launches on India’s PSLV, including a Google satellite scheduled for launch in April.”
The next day, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) endorsed an advisory committee’s recommendation that commercial U.S. satellites continue to be barred from using the PSLV.-

The ambassador’s speech and the FAA’s decision would appear to come from two different governments, which industry officials on both sides said pretty much sums up the state of U.S. policy. -

The CSLA, dating from 2005, is the U.S. government’s way of protecting the seemingly forever-nascent U.S. small-satellite launch industry from competing with government-controlled foreign launchers for U.S. business. It seeks to oblige non-U.S. rocket providers to sign a CSLA that, for all intents and purposes, sets U.S. commercial launch prices as the world minimum for government-owned non-U.S. launch providers. -

The rationale is that these non-U.S. launchers, not bound by the constraints of profit and loss – but hungry for hard-currency export earnings – will undercut commercial U.S. companies’ launch prices and keep them from gaining market traction. -

One small satellite owner said his company would go out of business if it had to wait for a reliable and cost-effective U.S. small satellite launch industry to be created.
An official with a commercial launch service provider had another view. It goes beyond launch services, this official said. India has not fully opened its satellite telecommunications market to non-Indian satellite service providers, funneling all satellite bandwidth contracts through the Indian Space Research Organisation.
“This is a country that is basically closed to us, and that’s an understatement,” this official said. “Why are we unilaterally allowing access to the U.S. market?”-

[krishna_krishna]

The following statements sums it up all:
"The U.S. is looking for stronger and closer relations with India but not for “anything exclusive,” Defence Secretary Ash Carter said, days ahead of his three-day visit to India that starts on April 10 "

My hope that India do not sign those three binding contracts period.

[NRao]

Stronger, closer, but nothing exclusive: Carter

I normally do not highlight articles.

The U.S is looking for stronger and closer relations with India but not for “anything exclusive,” Defence Secretary Ash Carter said, days ahead of his three-day visit to India that starts on April 10. Mr Carter, a strong proponent of deeper cooperation between India and the U.S, said he spent “a lot of time on it,” and reiterated that the U.S Pivot to Asia and India’s Act East policy implied convergence of concerns and interests.

Mr Carter will also be visiting the Philippines, where he will witness a joint military exercise and visit a U.S navy ship in the South China Sea.

“What we are looking for is a closer relationship and a stronger relationship as we can, because it is geo-politically grounded,” Mr. Carter said, speaking at the Centre of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “They (India) want to do things their own way. They don't want to do things just with us. They want to do things themselves. So all that's fine. So we're not looking for anything exclusive,” Mr. Carter, said adding that both countries would be announcing a “whole bunch of things” during his visit.

Mr. Carter’s emphasis on allowing space for India’s autonomy even as strategic ties deepen between the two countries comes against the backdrop of renewed efforts to conclude three defence agreements — the Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA), the Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). Long in negotiations, critics of these agreements — many within the Indian defence establishment – have argued that these would push India into a permanent embrace with the U.S and limit India’s strategic choices. “Indians are, like many others, also proud. So they want to do things independently,” Mr. Carter said.

“..there is a great deal of buzz over renewed talks on signing one or more of the defence foundation agreements…Such agreements open new doors to cooperation, and are tangible signposts of progress in our security relationship,” Richard M. Rossow, Wadhwani Chair in U.S. India Policy Studies at CSIS told The Hindu. Mr. Rossow pointed out that India would be participating in the air force exercise Operation Red Flag, later this month, after an eight-year gap.

The defence secretary said there were two key elements to the U.S-India strategic cooperation. First, the Pivot to Asia — Act East convergence, which, he said was “like two hands grasping one another.” He named the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) as the second defining component. “…they don't just want to be a buyer. They want to be a co-developer and co-producers. So, they want that kind of relationship,” Mr. Carter said, adding that this approach was in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. “…there could be positive changes to the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI). Four near-term DTTI projects were announced at the conclusion of President Barack Obama's historic January 2015 visit to New Delhi, as well as two longer-term projects. Not all of the near-term projects have been able to move ahead, and other project ideas have been floated by both sides. So perhaps the two sides are prepared to reshape the DTTI project list,” Mr. Rossow said.

Pivot Real?

Responding to the moderator’s observation that American allies in Asia Pacific wondered whether the pivot was for real, the defence secretary said the U.S was doubling down on efforts in the region, in “qualitative and quantitative” terms. “…for the simple reason that it is the single region of most consequence for America's future,” Mr. Carter said. He said the new rebalancing of Asia would have to account for the rise of China and India. “….this is a region that has no NATO, where the wounds of World War II are still not healed. So you can't take that for granted.”

China has raised concerns about the new Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the U.S and Philippines, and the joint exercise that is currently underway. “the United States should first clarify the targets of its Pivot to Asia strategy, which so far has featured no more than unscrupulous inconsistency between fear-mongering deeds and peace-loving words,” the Xinhua, official Chinese news agency said earlier this week.

[ramana]

Ombaba is lame duck. His pivot is half turned. China realized five years ago and went aggressive. Now US wants to use Indian Navy to police the seaplanes like Gungadin. Hence all the visits while taking adverse action against India.

[KrishnaK]

India As A Leading Power

[uddu]

Excellent! Looks like he had to be w/o it for the last 10 years but now has it granted officially.

In a nation that sends Religious freedom committee full of Christians (No Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jew, Jain, Yazidi, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Non-believer, animist, Pagans in the team..only Christians) it took them so long to allow a Sikh to keep his beard that also only when doing non-hazardous work. So weird is the United States of Amrika. I remembered how it took Pakistan 60 or so years to induct its first Sikh soldier into the Armed forces. Last heard is that he quit the job unable to bear the Jihadis in the Jihadi fauj.

[NRao]

(in true BR fashion)

The policy - to pivot - is not a lame duck.

It really has not much to do with "Obama". There has been and remains a broader support for this policy within the US, it was only articulated by Obama - something most neglect to realize because most "analysts" are either in hibernation or have buried their heads in the sand (due to age old biases)

Sec. Clinton conducted “a political and diplomatic offensive to prove American staying power in Asia.” As Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings wrote, “Hillary’s chief great-power legacy was indeed the rebalancing of U.S. interests toward Asia, and it has been vastly underappreciated by the chattering class… The reason the rebalance worked is that, led by Clinton but surely with very important input from leadership at the Pentagon and the president himself, the military measures were interwoven into a broader set of policies that was well articulated and clearly conveyed.” And as Walter Lohman of the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote, “The President and his administration—particularly the Secretary of State—conducted a political and diplomatic offensive to prove American staying power in Asia. It marked a 180-degree turn from where the White House had begun three years earlier.”

Key in the following is "First three years" - 2008-2011, when the policy was formulated.




IF Hillary gets elected I fully expect this policy to grow more teeth.

[NRao]

OK, here is what I have found ...................... so far:

Apr 02, 2016 :: F16 V could have a production line in India

So, it is not longer the F-16IN.

[NRao]

Apr 6, 2016 :: India asks US to stand guarantee for transfer of tech

[NRao]

Deepening Security Ties With the US a Sign of India’s Growing Confidence

Next week’s visit by US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to India has raised the prospect of deeper security cooperation between the two countries. Rumours about impending defence sales may be unfounded, as might the expectation that several bilateral defence agreements – long under negotiation – will be concluded. The agreements in question include the Logistics Supply Agreement (LSA), the Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). These are modest, and largely operational and technical agreements that would facilitate information sharing and the provision of supplies between the Indian and US armed forces. Being reciprocal, both militaries could potentially benefit from these agreements. The US has also expressed a willingness to tailor them to Indian circumstances and address certain Indian concerns. As with all important international agreements, the devils are in the details, and an argument can be made that some of the agreements (e.g. LSA and BECA) provide India with greater benefits and have fewer latent risks than others (e.g. CISMOA).

The probability of these agreements being concluded during Carter’s visit is low. However, regardless of the merits of these specific agreements, they have become a proxy for a renewed discussion on whether and to what extent a defence partnership between India and the US is desirable. The Modi government has indicated the outlines of strategic cooperation with the US in the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region, agreed in January 2015. But there are reports of opposition to the foundational agreements from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Analyst Bharat Karnad, similarly opposed in principle to closer cooperation with the US, has called the signing of these agreements “disastrous”. Meanwhile, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, India’s foremost public intellectual, has also questioned the wisdom of moving forward with these agreements without further debate. While the arguments being made by the MoD and Karnad appear to be circular – that closer partnership with the US is fundamentally undesirable, and thus arguments must be found to oppose the agreements – Mehta’s concerns are worth addressing. Indeed, they must be addressed because his arguments, and how they are framed, implicitly imperil a healthy debate on India’s national security interests.

Long-standing discussion

A first criticism is that the Indo-US defence partnership is progressing without a sufficient debate on its merits. This overlooks the fact that a robust debate has taken place on this very issue in India for years – in fact decades. (Indeed, Mehta has even contributed to it.)

Beyond ties with Pakistan, relations with the US are among the most frequently discussed issues concerning India’s external relations in parliament. Newspaper op-ed pages reflect a wide-ranging debate on the nature and extent of Indian security cooperation with the US. And, as the MoD opposition suggests, there are healthy internal differences within the Indian government as well. It is all very well to call for more debate; nobody has ever prevented one from taking place.

Boosting ties with US against Indian interests?

A second line of criticism is that India is deepening cooperation with the US – and against China – at Washington’s behest and not in accordance with Indian interests. “The US is making no secret of the fact that it wants to position India in its plans for China,” Mehta writes. “But it is not in India’s interests to become a frontline state in that emerging faultline.”

There are several problems with this line of reasoning. One is that a privileged relationship with Washington in no way thwarts cooperation with Beijing. In fact, over the past twenty years, as Indo-US defence relations have strengthened, India has also deepened military contacts with China, as part of important confidence building measures. More recently, India has also joined a number of Chinese-led multilateral initiatives, from the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Additionally, the Indian government has increasingly sought investment from China, widening the bilateral economic relationship. There is no reason to believe that the foundational agreements with the US, which even the likes of Singapore and Sri Lanka have signed, narrow India’s options with China. Quite the opposite.

Besides, India may not want to be a “frontline state” against China, but it already is one, not because of Washington’s exhortations, but because of Beijing’s intentions and actions. These include China’s building up of defence infrastructure on its border with India, its occasional attempts at altering the territorial status quo, its military support – including its history of providing nuclear and missile technology – to Pakistan and its growing military reach in India’s neighbourhood. In fact, the situation is rather reminiscent of India’s position in the evolving international system of the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time, it was not India’s desire to create a rift with Washington, but the US’ instrumental relationships with Pakistan and China that necessitated the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation. Today, China’s opacity, military modernisation and strategic intent mean that India must reconsider its security posture rather than persevere with much-vaunted but illusory notions of great power neutrality.

Neutrality does not equate security

Third, preserving neutrality or equidistance between the US and China will in no way contribute to Indian security. One need only look at the recent experience of Indonesia, perhaps the only large country more wedded to antiquated notions of Cold War-era non-alignment than India. Despite remaining steadfastly neutral and currying favour with Beijing by awarding it high-value infrastructure contracts, Indonesia has seen growing tensions with China over the presence of fishing and coast guard vessels around its Natuna Islands.

Neutrality, it turns out, is a false comfort blanket.

A sign of growing confidence

Finally, the notion that a closer Indian defence relationship with the US is a mark of “defeatism” is particularly confounding. That very fear of weakness or defeatism prevented India from seizing opportunities for cooperation with not just the US, but many of its allies, such as Japan, opportunities it is now seizing squarely, with barely a squeak from Beijing. The argument about defeatism also underestimates India’s own agency and its ability to make decisions based on its own interests. The progress in India’s relations with the US has never been motivated by naïve sentimentalism. The idea that these agreements are some sort of “parting gift” to US President Barack Obama is ludicrous. In the past few years, India has responded severely to the treatment of an Indian diplomat by US authorities, condemned the administration’s support for the Pakistani military, and criticised the US’ public calls for joint military patrols. India has also locked horns with the US recently over its solar program and US immigration policies. Any number of American officials would attest to the fact that South Block can hold its own in any negotiation with Foggy Bottom. Far from defeatism, India’s ability to shake hands with Washington is a sign of growing confidence in its own abilities.

An informed debate is must

There is a dangerous subtext in much of this criticism. Those implying that deeper defence cooperation with the US, by its very nature, cannot be in Indian interests and is a product of American pressure, are narrowing the space for any rational arguments in its favour. This is a slippery slope. Mehta, of all people, should appreciate its possible implications.

By all means, elevated defence ties with the US – and the specific foundation agreements under question – must be considered very carefully, even if they are unlikely to be concluded in the near future. But a security partnership with the US should also be discussed and debated on its merits rather than on sentimentalism, whether in favour of the US or based on nostalgia for a principle that was unceremoniously discarded 45 years ago. It is worth keeping in mind that a healthy debate on defence ties with the US has taken place for a long time in India, and continues; that such cooperation in no way makes India a frontline state against China at Washington’s behest; and that defence agreements with the US are neither a sign of weakness nor of defeatism, but are instead reflective of India’s growing confidence in its own capabilities.

Dhruva Jaishankar is a fellow with the German Marshall Fund.

[NRao]

US Defence Secretary to board Russian made INS Vikramaditya during his India visit

[Vipul]

India and US to bargain hard on defence agreements.

India and the US are set to bargain hard on three controversial defence foundational agreements and "pre-bid guarantee" on transfer of technology, in case an American firm bids for 'Make in India' fighter jet programme, during the visit of Defence Secretary Ashton Carter here next week.

The US has been pushing India to sign three agreements - Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement ( CISMOA), Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement ( BECA) - the previous UPA government had resisted.

However, under the new dispensation, things have changed and India is open to a tweaked LSA which facilitates the provision of logistical support, supplies, and services between the US military and the armed forces of partner countries on a reimbursable basis, and provides a framework that governs the exchange of logistics support, supplies, and services.

Defence sources said that "progress" has been made with regard to LSA but added that it does not mean that it is a done deal.

Even as India holds its cards close to chest, New Delhi has asked the US to make it clear if the American government will stand guarantee for transfer of technology (TOT) if US-based companies were to bid under 'Make in India' fighter jet programme.

"The Americans will have to give pre-bid guarantee if their firm wants to take part in Make in India programme for fighter aircraft. Companies promise moon but at the end we should not be left with sand in our hands," defence sources said.

The issues came up for discussion between the defence policy group of the two countries this week ahead of Carter's visit in India starting April 10.

[ramana]

So what was the un-tweaked version of LSA looks like that got rejected by UPA govt?


Let them go to Gawdar or Karachi. These are closer to their area of operations.

Also no point in posting US NRI think tankers opinions.
They are paid in US.

BTW look up the first flag of the US.
What did it look like?

[member_23370]

Hopefully no stupid agreements will be signed. Just stay away from all shitty bitty and nitty pitty agreements too.

[Viv S]

Let them go to Gawdar or Karachi. These are closer to their area of operations.

IIRC the Pakistanis refused to renew their agreement with the US after it lapsed in 2012.

However as far as IOR operations are concerned, the US signed an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement with Sri Lanka in 2007, so they have got a logistics node in a central position.

Ironically much of stuff they'd be shipping to Diego Garcia from Sri Lanka would be of Indian (FOL) and Pakistani (ammo) origin.

[NRao]

The American Hug

[krishna_krishna]

BTW look up the first flag of the US.
What did it look like?

What are you hinting at ?. It was british union jack with 13 stripes for the colonies.

[vish_mulay]

US flag (1775-77)



East India Company Flag (1707-1801)

[arshyam]

X-post

Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.
Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open

Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?

In a discussion on this topic, a former naval chief had no answer to the kind of objections I have raised above, or why the Navy in particular would rather rely on US warships or the base at Diego Garcia for mid-oceanic resupply and replenishment than speedily invest in and build-up the naval and air bases on North and South Agalega Islands offered by Mauritius, or on shore in a base in northern Mozambique offered by that country.

CISMOA: news reports portray Indian negotiators being satisfied with something called the “pre-bid guarantee” in case India chooses to manufacture an US armament system here — a combat aircraft, for instance. This “pre-bid guarantee: is supposed to require the US govt to guarantee the full transfer of technology. One can foresee how this will pan out. Such a guarantee is given but the supplier companies keep to the old way of doing things with India, namely, merely exporting first SKD kits, followed years later, by CKD kits while claiming there is full TOT. If questioned, they’ll point out that it is not their responsibility to ensure Indian firms, DPSUs, ingest and innovate the technologies passed on to them — which will be an irrefutable case. And hand over the full tranche of contracted funds, please! This guarantee, in the Indian context, is worth nothing.

The more significant issue is why the Modi PMO is going down this route. And shouldn’t it have been advised better, asked to temper their enthusiasm, not go full out, without being aware of booby traps down the supposed primrose path? The trouble is those in MEA advising the PM have long since jumped on to the American bandwagon. Foreign Secretary S, Jaishankar — his father K Subrahmanyam’s son alright — is in the van on these accords. Recall it was Subrahmanyam during the previous BJP govt’s tenure who persistently advocated buying peace with the US — sign the CTBT he said in 1996 along with his acolytes, such as Air Cmde Jasjit Singh, and for making the sorts of concessions his son first negotiated (as Joint Secretary, Americas) in the 2008 nuclear deal with the Congress party apparatchik Manmohan Singh as PM, and now as head of the foreign service, is configuring these foundational ags for an ideologically different, supposedly “nationalist”, BJP regime.

If China is the major worry and military cooperation with the US is deemed necessary, India can maximize collaborative activity and have similar outcomes by other solutions than committing to agreements that only bonafide allies of the US have so far accepted. Close embrace with any big power is always to the lesser state’s detriment. For India that sees itself as a great power in the process of being, it is all the more necessary to keep its distance but work with all powers, especially Russia and the regional states, such as Japan, and on the extended Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian littorals to more effectively stymie Beijing.

But this is obviously not the sort of counsel Modi hears, indicating the lack of professionalism in MEA and at the centre of foreign policymaking in New Delhi. Neither Modi — a politician, nor NSA, Ajit Doval, an ex-policeman, can be expected to know the complexities of friendship with the US formalized in treaty-like agreements. But MEA staffers are expected to do so. That they are failing in their duty to warn the PMO of pitfalls ahead, is what’s worrisome. By the time India begins to pay the full price of such accords pushed on the run, the present dramatis personae will have vacated the scene, and no one will be held accountable for the loss of India’s freedom of policy maneuver, its basic autonomy, and worse.

[arshyam]

The American Hug

Posting in full, considering a rebuttal to this article is posted in full above.

The American hug - Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Is India approaching a pivotal moment in its foreign policy? Will the emerging shape of Indo-US relations help or hinder India’s prospects? There has been a great deal of momentum in Indo-US relations beginning with the nuclear agreements. The depth of the economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual relationship between the two countries can be of unprecedented benefit to both. The question is: To what extent should this relationship be transformed into a deep strategic and military partnership? The debate in government over signing three possible agreements with the US — the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — has once again focused attention on this question. Will these agreements be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parting gift to President Barack Obama? Radical breaks in Indian foreign policy are rare. These agreements are in line with the trends the UPA initiated. But are we at that moment when, inchoately, quantity becomes quality, and we go down on a path that prematurely forecloses options?

At one level, some of these seem to be prosaic agreements. For example, the LSA seems more of an enabling accounting agreement that facilitates mundane reciprocal uses of each other’s facilities. It does not, in any way, commit India to provide logistical or base support, though it is seen to be the thin end of the wedge towards that. But, taken together, these agreements signal fundamental transformations in India’s foreign policy thinking. For one thing, they will signal an unprecedented geopolitical alignment with the US. Second, there is a signalling of a deeper alignment of India’s defence future with the American military industrial complex. Third, there is a possibility, as the defence minister had suggested, of these agreements pushing India to unwittingly providing support to the US in conflicts that are not of our making, particularly in the Middle East. These are momentous shifts. They may be desirable. But it is a bit disquieting that these shifts are taking place without much public debate. There are too many distractions. But it has also become all too easy to represent any scepticism about military alignments with the US as fossilised remnants of old thinking; whereas, in fact, the unthinking embrace of the US also poses considerable risks.

The US is making no secret of the fact that it wants to position India in its plans for China. But it is not in India’s interests to become a frontline state in that emerging faultline. Its interests have always been to do business with both countries so that both take it seriously. This is a sophisticated game. But an open declaration of a political and defence alignment with the US forecloses those options. We will come to be unwittingly identified with American rhetoric and designs for Asia. And the overblown rhetoric emanating from Washington about positioning India in its pushback of China will reduce our options. It is not an accident that except for an odd country or two like the Philippines, most Asian powers are still hedging. It does not suit our interests to jump the gun, as it were.

There is this bizarre fantasy being woven of India as a great maritime power. We do have an interest in an open and accessible maritime order. But it is running quite ahead of reality to suppose that India’s immediate interests lie in aligning with America to extend our reach. For one thing, our capital investments in the navy make it too premature to think that we will be greatly using access to American bases. But, for a moment, assume a worst case scenario in terms of China’s stance in Asia: That tensions escalate, particularly in the South China Sea. Do we really think we will challenge the Chinese there with the Americans, when all that the Chinese have to do is take a little walk across our vast borders to make us feel vulnerable? Our job as a global power is to defuse, not escalate, tensions. India has also done well to avoid identification with many of America’s wars, and ideological constructions, particularly in West Asia. The Donald Trump candidacy portends a potential craziness in American foreign policy, but even a Hillary Clinton presidency portends a more interventionist foreign policy that might make us uncomfortable. The question is whether a more intricate operational embrace with the US will make keeping that distance harder.

The US is a vital development partner for India. And, certainly, access to high-end American technology is not going to come without a price or without extracting commitments. We have to assess the costs and benefits of this ledger carefully. But the truth is that our interests do not necessarily converge with the US. On development issues, from trade to intellectual property to immigration, these fissures are likely to remain. The American military industrial complex does see the South Asian conflict as a potential bonanza; just witness the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. Some tactical intelligence help to India cannot detract from the fact that the Americans have helped sustain the institutional configuration in Pakistan that has arguably been detrimental to both India and Pakistan. So India’s defence ministry is right to worry about what our tighter defence embrace of the US might mean.

A sophisticated engagement with the US is in India’s interests. But there is reason to worry that the escalating nature of our defence agreements with the US will put us on a slippery slope where we may not be able to manage our own geopolitical positioning in the world’s major conflicts. This is not a necessary outcome of these engagements. But what should make us suspicious is the fact that deep down, the Indian strategic embrace of the US has been born out of a psychology of defeatism: As if the US will be our crutch against China. And the Washington establishment that now has unprecedented access to Indian circles of power eggs on that belief.

Modi’s great rhetorical gambit was the overcoming of defeatism. Yet it is hard to shake off the impression that this government seems a little keener to ingratiate India with the American foreign policy establishment. America will be India’s great civilisational friend; whether the American state should be so tightly embraced is still an open question.

We need to at least debate this more openly before we set out on a path of no return.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinio ... MR14P.dpuf

[SwamyG]

One can find dots to connect EIC, America and India. For example Elihu Yale (Yale University is named after him) was thrown out of Madras. He was EIC's governor. He had his own smuggling operations going on.

Even the "Boston Tea Party" has EIC's fingerprints. Some consider the tea came from India, however others have argued that tea came from China.

EIC used to bring huge amounts of cotton from India. However, when cotton was grown in American south, India's influence on the cotton trade went down. India before America came into picture was a major influence in cloth manufacturing, weaving, superior cotton, abundant skilled labor etc.

Cornwallis fought in the American wars, he won some and lost some. Later he was moved to India, where he died.

[sukhish]

India and US to bargain hard on defence agreements.

India and the US are set to bargain hard on three controversial defence foundational agreements and "pre-bid guarantee" on transfer of technology, in case an American firm bids for 'Make in India' fighter jet programme, during the visit of Defence Secretary Ashton Carter here next week.

The US has been pushing India to sign three agreements - Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement ( CISMOA), Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement ( BECA) - the previous UPA government had resisted.

However, under the new dispensation, things have changed and India is open to a tweaked LSA which facilitates the provision of logistical support, supplies, and services between the US military and the armed forces of partner countries on a reimbursable basis, and provides a framework that governs the exchange of logistics support, supplies, and services.

Defence sources said that "progress" has been made with regard to LSA but added that it does not mean that it is a done deal.

Even as India holds its cards close to chest, New Delhi has asked the US to make it clear if the American government will stand guarantee for transfer of technology (TOT) if US-based companies were to bid under 'Make in India' fighter jet programme.

"The Americans will have to give pre-bid guarantee if their firm wants to take part in Make in India programme for fighter aircraft. Companies promise moon but at the end we should not be left with sand in our hands," defence sources said.

The issues came up for discussion between the defence policy group of the two countries this week ahead of Carter's visit in India starting April 10.

sure india will bargain hard, as it has always been. BTW what the urgent need for these agreements.

[Viv S]

sure india will bargain hard, as it has always been. BTW what the urgent need for these agreements.

Nothing urgent about it. They've been discussing the three pacts for (quite literally) the last ten years. The Carter visit may result in one of them being signed in the near future.

[nvishal]

Ombaba is lame duck. His pivot is half turned. China realized five years ago and went aggressive. Now US wants to use Indian Navy to police the seaplanes like Gungadin. Hence all the visits while taking adverse action against India.

The mysterious question is - "what do the russians want?" wrt to india china.

Our current policy of trying to avoid a conflict with china strongly mirrors the 62 situation. IMO, china had come to the "this world not big for both" conclusion in 62 itself. I think its important to know what the russians want.

BTW what the urgent need for these agreements.

Those are strategic agreements. They are meant for the US to move against russia.


The russians have been loosing strategic advantage as americans build more bases to contain them

The US plans to use the india-china tension to get india to sign. I think you can imagine what will happen to the russia-india relationship if we sign.

[PratikDas]

Ombaba is lame duck. His pivot is half turned. China realized five years ago and went aggressive. Now US wants to use Indian Navy to police the seaplanes like Gungadin. Hence all the visits while taking adverse action against India.

The mysterious question is - "what do the russians want?" wrt to india china.

Our current policy of trying to avoid a conflict with china strongly mirrors the 62 situation. IMO, china had come to the "this world not big for both" conclusion in 62 itself. I think its important to know what the russians want.

The Russians want to profit by selling arms to both India and China whilst maintaining superior arms themselves to annihilate either of those countries if one is ever stupid enough to threaten Russia. Until that happens, the Russians will keep ringing their cash registers. Not rocket science.

[Peregrine]

'US has much bigger global agenda with India than Pakistan'

NEW YORK: United States has a much bigger global agenda with India in contrast to Pakistan, and Washington has moved far beyond looking at its relations with the South Asian neighbours as linked, according to US Defence Secretary Ash Carter.

"We have much more to do with India today than has to do with Pakistan." Carter said Friday. "There's important business with respect to Pakistan, but we have much more - a whole global agenda with India, an agenda that covers all kinds of issues."

He was answering a question from the audience during a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations about how the growing US ties with India will impact Washington's relations with Islamabad.

In his address on the eve of leaving on a visit to India, Carter said US relations with India was "destined to be one of the most significant partnerships of the 21st century." He said there would be "exciting new projects" and a "strategic handshake" with India encompassing military cooperation and defence co-production.

"The days are gone when we only deal with India as the other side of the Pakistan coin, or Pakistan as the other side of the India coin," he said. "I know that there are those in India and Pakistan who are still glued to that dyad way of thinking. But the United States put that behind us some time ago."

While describing Pakistan as "an important security partner," he said, "We have a big set of issues having to do with the border with Afghanistan, where we continue to operate; with terrorism, both on the territory of Pakistan and also obviously cross-border into Afghanistan, including affecting US service members there." He added, "I'm sure I'll be asked about it in India."

"It's long past - we're long past the point in US policymaking where we look at the India-Pakistan dyad as the whole story for either one of them," he said

Cheers

[Philip]

Pakistan s the horse,sorry...ass ,that has bolted from the stable door with a mouthful of nukes. India is the neigh..bour (pun intended ),which has to defend itself from the ass-inine Pakis (pardon the pun again) to the eest and the firebreathing dragon to the west,the all-weather bumchum of the Pakis.

In doing so India has to raise its mil capability many times of what it has right now,both in conventional weaponry plus long range nuclear strike with ICBMs and SSBM launched MIRV BMs.On a BBC programme,an intl analyst was speaking to the former NZ leader who is an aspirant for the top job at the UN.She said that in an expanded UNSC,there were 4 nations which best qualified; Germany,Japan,India and Brazil. If the UN is to survive into the 21st century,then it has to radically change in structure and tune.This is not the post WW2 20th century.What the US wants is a defanged Indian that is "yours obediently" to US/Western diktat now and forevermore.hence the pressure to sign the various mil agreements,gradually inch by inch breaking down Indian resistance and drawing India closer and closer into the US's military fold to counter China ...and Russia.

Therein lies the acute problem.Russia ahs been our lost loyal friend since Independence and it is mainly because of Russia that we severed Pak into two,establishing our pre-eminence in the Indian subcontinent.Unfortunately,there are many Indians in responsible positions who would love to replace Pak as the "rent-boy" of the region.Willing to be White House butler,like Snake-Oil Singh for a few scraps from the table. Vested interests abound.It is amazing that despite the immense military and economic support for atrocious Pak,even now after Pathankot and the abject failure to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to jusrice,the US blows cold in punishing Pak over its terrorism aimed at India.India's mortal enemy,some would sacrifice India's ,sovereignty and future independence by attempting to tie the knot with the US.

[UlanBatori]

Ashton Carter reminds me of someone who claims he is now a genius because he "no longer adds 1 and 1 and gets 11". "Dyadic thinking" aka ignoramoussic sh1theadedness for 6 decades. or in short, SDOTUSese

[member_26011]

"The days are gone when we only deal with India as the other side of the Pakistan coin, or Pakistan as the other side of the India coin," he said. "I know that there are those in India and Pakistan who are still glued to that dyad way of thinking. But the United States put that behind us some time ago."

The f@(king gall. Bossdk.
Hum hootiye baithe hain yahan tere bade agendu ke liye.
M'drch-d tees saal se Bol Bol ke Thak Gaye aur tu Chala Mai ka glued.

[member_22733]

Remember people: He Frog, Froggy in the Bottom of the well.

[vishvak]

<SNIP>
The Russians want to profit by selling arms to both India and China whilst maintaining superior arms themselves to annihilate either of those countries if one is ever stupid enough to threaten Russia. Until that happens, the Russians will keep ringing their cash registers. Not rocket science.

Its the same with Americans abt Pakistan with open policy of balance. Even more important thing to not overlook is that what senate passes is the law, and add to it that lobby for terrorist country Pakistan is as legit as any lobby from India, if there is one. Not to forget Pakistanis run a highly synchronous routines while Indian side has all kind of jaichand parties trying to score points against Indian interests. In other words, there is many layers of opposition, including jaichand parties within to deep state gauntlet to total outsiders like Italy playing mischief.

This is a legit concern if there are some alphabet treaties to be signed, moving away from purely transactional relationship. We should know what we are getting into. What the US senate passes becomes the law, even if its lobbied by Pakis.

The super duper MIC of USA will not sell stuff on purely transactional way, which is where another concern could be, even to a country with defensive posture and facing two nuke armed adversaries including terror munna.

[PratikDas]

vishvak ji, no disagreement there at all. We ought to be as wary of signing the acronym laws and buying from the Americans as we ought to be of buying from the Russians. Both short-change Indian progress.

[NRao]

Carter-led US panel to arrive in Goa today

PANAJI: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Saturday said the Indo-US talks involving US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will be held at New Delhi on April 12, which would work towards identifying more military technologies for co-development and production under the bilateral Defence Technology and Trade Initiative.

“India wants to establish best of defence co-operation with US,” he added, pointing out that many issues of importance would be finalised during these bilateral talks, including enhancement of the defence exercises.

India and the US are also closer to inking the contentious logistics support agreement, which would give militaries of the two countries access to each other’s facilities for fuelling and berthing. The US has also presented India with an offer to produce the F-16 and F-18 fighter jets under its ‘Make in India’ programme.

Parrikar, who earlier inaugurated Panaji Residency renovated by the Goa Tourism Development Corporation at a cost of Rs 12 crore, later speaking to the media persons said that a US delegation led by Carter would arrive in Goa on April 10, and visit Mangeshi temple as well as the churches in Old Goa.

“I will also be hosting a dinner for him on the same day,” he noted.

Parrikar said that his US counterpart will visit the Karwar naval base on April 11.

“The willingness of the United States to interact with India on various levels of the defence sector, is indicative of the importance given by the US to India in defence related exchange as well as alliances,” he maintained.

Parrikar will host Carter on INS Vikramaditya off the naval base at Karwar, a reciprocal gesture since the US Defence Secretary had done the same for the Defence Minister when he had visited aircraft carrier USS Dwight D Eisenhower during his visit to the US, last year.

The Defence Minister also said that if the Goa government is willing to make the state a permanent venue for the Defence Expo event of the defence ministry, then his ministry would be willing to enter into an memorandum of understanding with the hotel industry of the state, as regards providing food at an affordable rate for the visitors to the defence-related event.

“This year, even the representatives of the multinational companies, who came down to Goa for attending the Defence Expo felt the heat of the food prices here,” he mentioned, informing that Goa is now set to be an international tourism destination, with important events like the eighth BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) Summit slated to be held here, in October, later this year.

Parrikar further said that the law and order situation as well as the attitude of Goans are two positive things, which would work in favour of the state tourism.

Replying to a question, he said that it would not be possible to hold the Aero India Show in Goa immediately.

“We would go ahead with this show in Goa, may be at a later stage, if we get positive vibes from the state,” he observed.

Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar, city MLA Sidharth Kunkalienkar, and chairman of the Goa Tourism Development Corporation Nilesh Cabral were also present on the occasion.

The Panaji Residency, which was constructed at a cost of Rs 13 lakh in 1963, as part of welfare tourism would have Spa, Jacuzzi, Yoga and Ayurveda facility, starting its functioning from the next tourism season. The GTDC has already awarded the tender for providing this facility, and will get Rs 25 lakh deposit towards the same, besides monthly revenue of Rs 1.75 lakh, which would grow by 7 per cent annually.

[NRao]

Parrikar to host U.S. Defence Secretary on INS Vikramaditya

India and the U.S. will attempt to elevate their strategic cooperation by several notches when U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter begins his India visit from Goa, home state of his Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar, on Sunday.

For both sides this will likely be the last such high-level engagement on the defence side ahead of Presidential elections in the U.S. in September and a change of government there. Mr. Parrikar will host Mr. Carter on aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya and the trip will wind up with official engagements in the national capital on Tuesday.

Both countries are currently negotiating the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) which gives militaries of the two countries access to each other’s facilities for fuelling and berthing. However India has expressed reservations on usage in times of war and has sought clarification from the U.S.

The burgeoning defence cooperation under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) will be reviewed. The talks will focus on the 17 new projects in the pipeline and attempts will be made to narrow down and finalise them.

With India looking for another fighter aircraft beyond the Rafale, the U.S. has already presented India with offers for producing the F-16 and F-18 fighter jets under Make in India.

[Viv S]

The mysterious question is - "what do the russians want?" wrt to india china.

Our current policy of trying to avoid a conflict with china strongly mirrors the 62 situation. IMO, china had come to the "this world not big for both" conclusion in 62 itself. I think its important to know what the russians want.

That's quite straightforward. They want the BRICS & SCO to evolve into security partnerships (to counter NATO) with Russia as the first among equals, while the AIIB & NDB, rightfully dominated by China, emerge as counterweights to the Bretton Woods institutions.

Those are strategic agreements. They are meant for the US to move against russia.

The US isn't anywhere as concerned with Russia over the long term as it is with China. Despite the slick visuals from Syria, the Russia GDP is still only $2 trillion (now $1.2 trillion after the recent crash and devaluation) and in conventional military terms, its far outmatched by just the EU (to say nothing of the US).

The US plans to use the india-china tension to get india to sign. I think you can imagine what will happen to the russia-india relationship if we sign.

Contrary to Philip's rosy-eyed fantasy about two like hearts meeting, falling in love, and dancing around trees, the Russia-India or rather the Soviet-India relationship was a product of cold hard realpolitik, a policy no more idealistic than Nixon's ping-pong diplomacy with China.

In the 50s, both superpowers wanted to co-opt India into their respective spheres of influence while India chose to tread its own path of non-alliance. Which is why in 1962, when the Indo-China broke out, the Russians didn't lift a finger to help us (thanks to communist solidarity) while the US rushed in aid, promising quite a bit more (thanks to anti-communism solidarity).

By the late 60s, the PRC-USSR relationship had soured culminating in the brief but bitter 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict. The US saw the opportunity to opportunity to permanently slice the PRC off from the Soviet sphere and forged a new strategic relationship with Mao, ideology be damned.

This led to an unprecedented convergence of Soviet and Indian interests (anti-US + anti-China), laying the basis for the Indo-Soviet Friendship treaty of 1971, non-alignment be damned.

All well and good until the late 80s when the wheels started to come off the Soviet economy. The Berlin Wall broke up, US and China broke up and then the USSR itself broke up.

The first thing the new Russian successor state did was to 'normalize' relations with China, a key component being large scale supplies of military equipment and technology, partnership with India be damned.

If we look back, the one factor that every one of them, including India, had in common was that they were looking out for their own national interests first and foremost.

As things stand, the Indo-Russian relationship has been sustaining itself on historical bonhomie for quite a long time but the cracks, emerging from a lack of genuine strategic congruence, are beginning to show. It isn't personal, we have no notable bilateral disputes, its just that, for better or worse, our interests are diverging.

Russia has little interest in India's tussle with Pakistan. India has little interest in Russia's tussle with Ukraine. Russia feels somewhat threatened by the US and its European allies and welcomes (to an extent) the presence of a rich and powerful China. India feels somewhat threatened by a rich and powerful China and welcomes (to an extent) the presence of the US and its Pacific allies.

We can blame India for moving closer to US, or blame Russia for (first) tying up with China or we can accept that its just geopolitics.

[NRao]

The US plans to use the india-china tension to get india to sign. I think you can imagine what will happen to the russia-india relationship if we sign.

Tension? MP visiting China to build military ties.






While Chinese troops are active in POK ................................................ supposedly along the Indian border. Go figure.




Russia [ruhsh-uh]
noun
1.
a republic extending from E Europe to N and W Asia. 6,593,000 sq. mi. (17,076,000 sq. km).
Capital: Moscow.

2.
That is viewed by India as a source of energy.

[SSridhar]

sure india will bargain hard, as it has always been. BTW what the urgent need for these agreements.

Nothing urgent about it. They've been discussing the three pacts for (quite literally) the last ten years. The Carter visit may result in one of them being signed in the near future.

Even if the NDA decides, in its wisdom, to sign the treaties, there is no need to sign all of them when the US Elections are around the corner. Let's not lose leverages with the next US President.

[NRao]

^^^^

I see no leverage after Carter leaves, outside of a LM/Boeing kicking and screaming.

When Kerry was appointed SoS I planned on digging a hole in the ground, entering and emerging after Obama left office. Thankfully nothing unto has happened.

For whatever reason, Carter has done what a ton of others have refused to do. He has initiated the DTTI (actually thanks to Rumsfeld) and the emerging working groups in Engine and Carriers. IF he can add fighters - as he did in his last speech - to the list and make it happen before he exists that would be great. After all it would mean overcoming SD scripted oversight.

I just do not see a need to wait.

And, I have a gut feel Carter will deliver. Else he would have never sent LM/Boeing AND a Pentagon team to India - do all this and only to have MP say "No"?

I have no clue what will be delivered, but I *suspect* it will be beyond expectations. ??????

April 12, 2016? Guess I will have to wait till then.

[krishna_krishna]

^^^ My friends I guess you are too naïve to marketing and sales pitches. There are numerous such trips plans to sale the wares.

Teens could not even pass the MMRCA test criteria, this is all smoking some weird substance. You can sit and wait forever I hope nothing comes out of it.They have their interests and we have ours whenever it suits us we should engage them ( i.e chinook, M777, P8 I etc.) rest you do whats best for you and we will do whats best in our national interest. They can give junk F solah and vipers to pakis it suits the beggers we will go with S400 and pak fa and what not.

Massa and desh can only have transactional relationship perod!!!.

[bahdada]

"with Russia as the first among equals".

Pips' wet dream. I couldn't help but laugh. I know you meant it in jest.