India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

[JE Menon]

I'm waiting to see whatever is released of the agreement that is almost certainly going to be signed.

My personal position is in favour of a transactional relationship on state level where the militaries are concerned, case-by-case determination where strategic impact decisions are needed, a minimally constrained business relationship in non-strategic sectors, and unrestrained people to people relationship. This applies to anyone, not just the US.

[chetak]

Instead of NBC suits, should have covered BPJs and combat gear and helmets.

That would have been of more use and relevance to us.

looks like they are trying to gain insights into the IA doctor's expertise in treating blast injuries.

quite a self serving agenda.

[Suresh S]

one who do not see any overwhelming benefits that justify the agreement while also feeling the fear of being blindsided by US intentions because of history. I find myself in the last category.

I would end by quoting from Clausewitz: “In politics, there are two kinds of coalitions, one that aims expressly to defeat or coerce the enemy, and another that aims to weaken, to preoccupy both the enemy and the ally.” I fear the latter coalition.

this is what I think.

Because of recent history I question myself also. But if we look at thousands of years of India-china history we should cooperate with the chinese in the long term. looking into the future of world affairs and who will dominate , nothing better for western powers than to have a fight between china and India and they once again will be the top dog for a very long time. This is what I fear the most, even though we should keep our eyes open with regards to China.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^^
No good will come out of PRC as far as India is concerned. It was true in 1947 when they established this contraption called PRC, it was true in 1950 and has been true every since. And about western powers being the top dog for a very long time I do not think that applies any more. The world's economic Gravity has shifted from Atlantic region to the Indo-Pacific region. And in that we and PRC will be the top dogs.
In its entire existence when has PRC done any good for India? PRC knows that unlike Japan, Korea or Vietnam or even USA its long term competitor and challenger is India. And I am damn if I would want my country to play second fiddle to PRC. We can cooperate with PRC as long as our interests coincide, we are the top dog and PRC our side kick. Otherwise no. We do not want to dominate PRC but we damn hell will not be dominated by them.

[svinayak]

one who do not see any overwhelming benefits that justify the agreement while also feeling the fear of being blindsided by US intentions because of history. I find myself in the last category.

I would end by quoting from Clausewitz: “In politics, there are two kinds of coalitions, one that aims expressly to defeat or coerce the enemy, and another that aims to weaken, to preoccupy both the enemy and the ally.” I fear the latter coalition.

this is what I think.

Because of recent history I question myself also. But if we look at thousands of years of India-china history we should cooperate with the chinese in the long term. looking into the future of world affairs and who will dominate , nothing better for western powers than to have a fight between china and India and they once again will be the top dog for a very long time. This is what I fear the most, even though we should keep our eyes open with regards to China.

India has a growing population and will be largest in another 30 years.
They have managed to create enemies surrounding India.
Now the alliance being created is to weaken India and the asian countries.

[arshyam]

snahata-ji, ++1. It is definitely in the interest of the US and its European allies to have India and China at each others' throats. Having said that, China being nominally communist, does not see that India has not meant any harm to it historically, and they will try to keep asserting their 'supremacy' where possible. A study of communist ideology will reveal its commonalities with the Abrahamic foundations of its original proponents . So, they won't stop.

Ultimately, India has to deal with both, not to mention the threat from our west. No sense in getting to one camp or the other.

SSridhar-ji, very well put, as usual. I couldn't have explained it better. People here seem to think all those who oppose this agreement are in the first camp, but in reality, most of us are in the last. I too, have no issues engaging with the US - I have clearly stated it earlier. But it should be on our terms for our benefit. Of course the US should see benefits for itself too, only then there will be engagements of 'mutual benefit'. In this case, the 'mutual' part is what I am still skeptical about. Someone mentioned that we can refuel off the coast of Vietnam or elsewhere in the SCS, etc. All that's fine, though theoretically, the Vietnamese could do the refuelling off coast as well, but I'll let it slide. The US has access in SCS already, they don't get anything from us there, logistically speaking. They have better access in the IOR already (DG, S'pore, the African coast - Djibouti, Bahrain, Colombo etc.), so nothing gained from us here too. Now, since they are already well stocked from the above, what are they gaining by getting access to our mainland Naval and air facilities? Clearly, whatever it is, it's not logistics.

The LSA agreement does not mean that we are having permanent USN or US Marines or USAAF or US Army bases in India like Okinawa or the former Subic Bay of USN. We are giving access to USN and possibly USAAF to our air bases and in turn get access to their bases.

Chistopher Sidor-ji, we won't know for sure till we read the actual agreement text. While I don't expect there to be any direct mention of basing rights, there could be some clause dealing with emergencies which could pave the way for future expectations. That, sir, I will contest fully.

[SaiK]

case-by-case should be time bound determined. the architecture of the agreement should define that.
for example, if the governing body doesn't conclude by certain period, what is the automatic clause?
default: approved/goes to PM/Prez veto/disapproved?

The relationship can take a hit on default disapproval, and no nation wants that.. think strategic.
default approval process is as good as blanket approval with buffers, but has high benefits given time, vote to deny!
PM/Prez can get a veto on things, if sent again.
not more than twice it can be denied, and then automatically either vetoed or disapproved.

I guess, we both countries have something similar to follow.

whatever, I hate this public destruction of properties on either side for anything and everything politics.
An automatic nuke drop by Israelis on pakistan can trigger Kashmir go section 144

[arshyam]

PRCThe US knows that unlike Japan, Korea or Vietnam or even USAPRC its long term competitor and challenger is India. And I am damn if I would want my country to play second fiddle to PRCthe US. We can cooperate with PRCthe US as long as our interests coincide, we are the top dog and PRCthe US our side kick. Otherwise no. We do not want to dominate PRCthe US but we damn hell will not be dominated by them.

I hope you will agree that the above statement is equally true. Note that I said "equally". People are talking about the PRC threat over the next couple of decades, I am talking about the long term.

Ultimately, we are on our own. Let's not lose sight of it - the US certainly hasn't.

[SaiK]

like how sanctions are placed, agreements can be trashed too

[chetak]

like how sanctions are placed, agreements can be trashed too

+1

we should look after ourselves first before worrying about others.

Our national interest should be supreme.

[ramana]

Item 1 in chart #2 is most critical as nukes go away. Hence the emphasis on that.
Massa knows India is leap frogging into the DEW age.

CS, China is changing as we argue.
Eleven Ping is trying to glide path away from Commies.
Massa is Evangelizing China rapidly at same time.

No point in making nearby permanent enemies for distant fair weather friends.

My own thinking.

[ramana]

Bade, Sjha know what he is talking about.

[chetak]

Item 1 in chart #2 is most critical as nukes go away. Hence the emphasis on that.
Massa knows India is leap frogging into the DEW age.

CS, China is changing as we argue.
Eleven Ping is trying to glide path away from Commies.
Massa is Evangelizing China rapidly at same time.

No point in making nearby permanent enemies for distant fair weather friends.

My own thinking.

a fcuked and far from home pakiland, virtually abandoned by it's patron, on multiple occasions, should be example enough for us to gauge what the US is capable of doing to it's allies when it's own self interest is at sake.

we don't need to fight with the chinese but certainly need to stand up to them and not be pushed around and that should include trade and bi laterals and shutting down imports when they dump on our markets

[Bade]

Bade, Sjha know what he is talking about.

What is his credentials ? Does he attend seminars held by said organizations. It is easy to make accusations on internet forums, with no basis.

[SaiK]

whatever said and done, you can't project more than your capability.
if you do so, then (f/b)luffs will lead you to hyphenated with pakis and chips

ps:

i think the fear is entering warp-9 of the "unknown uknowns". the scratcher has dug his nail deep i guess

[sukhish]

India using US navel bases navel is laughable. is planning some contingency for south america ? this is why UPA was never for these agreement. but Mr hard negotiators
skills are on full display in front of public.

[JE Menon]

^^sukhish, this is not the place for political discussion. Talks were started in the early 1990s and have been continuing since... This government has barely been in power for two years.

[KrishnaK]

I'm waiting to see whatever is released of the agreement that is almost certainly going to be signed.

My personal position is in favour of a transactional relationship on state level where the militaries are concerned, case-by-case determination where strategic impact decisions are needed, a minimally constrained business relationship in non-strategic sectors, and unrestrained people to people relationship. This applies to anyone, not just the US.

JEM, one problem with that statement - strategy is shaped to protect business and the direction of military engagement follows. The US defended Western Europe during the Cold war to keep those economies and their productive capabilities from being added to the Soviets basket. Same with Japan. As a result of giving them free access to its own markets, those economies and their fortunes (a substantial sum) are intertwined with those of the US. The US cannot let Japan and the other economies of SE Asia be dominated and coerced into an alliance with China for the want of another option. The broad gist of US expectations of India is for it to take a committed stance far as that theater is concerned. Whether the US supports Pakistan, or it's past behaviour elsewhere in the world is completely irrelevant to our interest in keeping China in check. Just like it is China's core interests to keep India bogged down with Pakistan, it is ours to keep China hemmed in, in its own backyard. On that score, our interests lie entirely with the US camp. No other country is capable of shaping an alliance to moderate China's behaviour.

If our business interests become heavily intertwined with Japan's, which is the direction in which we're heading, it is not possible to have a transactional relationship with Japan on a military level anymore. Their security interests are ours. We can still choose to take different stances on Pakistan, our immediately neighbourhood excluding Pakistan, the middle east or anywhere else.

[SaiK]

The only way to check China is openly trash the One China Policy.

Is USA willing to trash/condemn it? let us see if they can.

[KrishnaK]

The only way to check China is openly trash the One China Policy.

Is USA willing to trash/condemn it? let us see if they can.

That is not true at all.

[chetak]

I'm waiting to see whatever is released of the agreement that is almost certainly going to be signed.

My personal position is in favour of a transactional relationship on state level where the militaries are concerned, case-by-case determination where strategic impact decisions are needed, a minimally constrained business relationship in non-strategic sectors, and unrestrained people to people relationship. This applies to anyone, not just the US.

JEM, one problem with that statement - strategy is shaped to protect business and the direction of military engagement follows. The US defended Western Europe during the Cold war to keep those economies and their productive capabilities from being added to the Soviets basket. Same with Japan. As a result of giving them free access to its own markets, those economies and their fortunes (a substantial sum) are intertwined with those of the US. The US cannot let Japan and the other economies of SE Asia be dominated and coerced into an alliance with China for the want of another option. The broad gist of US expectations of India is for it to take a committed stance far as that theater is concerned. Whether the US supports Pakistan, or it's past behaviour elsewhere in the world is completely irrelevant to our interest in keeping China in check. Just like it is China's core interests to keep India bogged down with Pakistan, it is ours to keep China hemmed in, in its own backyard. On that score, our interests lie entirely with the US camp. No other country is capable of shaping an alliance to moderate China's behaviour.

If our business interests become heavily intertwined with Japan's, which is the direction in which we're heading, it is not possible to have a transactional relationship with Japan on a military level anymore. Their security interests are ours. We can still choose to take different stances on Pakistan, our immediately neighbourhood excluding Pakistan, the middle east or anywhere else.

Don't underestimate the Japanese or misread their "peaceful" posture. A leopard never changes it's spots nor a tiger, it's stripes.

Their warship, submarine and fighter aircraft building capabilities are second to none. They are only a few screwdriver turns away from becoming a nuke power. They have demonstrated launch capabilities too from their "space" program.

A couple of "banzai" calls and they will mate serious stuff with the launcher, especially when they live in a crazy neighborhood. Right now, they are coasting along on amreki muscle but that is not going to last forever because of the horrendous costings.

They had brought the amrekis to their knees in WWII and that kind of muscle memory in an old war making civilization is not easily lost.

so, it is entirely possible to have a trustworthy transactional relationship with Japan on a military level when they come out of the closet. We are better off with them rather than with the amrekis

[Suresh S]

Agree with chetak,s post above. I do not think it is irrelevent what a country has done in the past and continues to do today. It tells you about it,s culture and it,s mindset. That is why I prefer Japan and Russia in the long term. I understand at the present time our interest are with Americans with regard to China but we must tread with extreme caution.

[Hitesh]

They had brought the amrekis to their knees in WWII and that kind of muscle memory in an old war making civilization is not easily lost.

No they did not bring the Americans to their knees in WWII. As soon as the Japanese were done with Pearl Harbor, Adm. Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor raid, instantly knew it was a mistake and that they had awoken a sleeping dragon and that there would be no way out. Japanese asked for a negotiated peace all along and the Americans flatly out refused, demanding unconditional surrender all the way through. There was no quarter given or asked for. USA was fighting a two front war and USA's full attention was on the European theater devoting most of its resources there and yet its Pacific theater forces were beating the Japanese forces left and right from Midway to the shores of Japan.

[prahaar]

Hiteshji, European front was majorly won by USSR forces not US forces. But we digress from the topic of the thread. So I stop here.

[SaiK]

The only way to check China is openly trash the One China Policy.

Is USA willing to trash/condemn it? let us see if they can.

That is not true at all.

what is true?

[ramana]

Instead of NBC suits, should have covered BPJs and combat gear and helmets.

That would have been of more use and relevance to us.

looks like they are trying to gain insights into the IA doctor's expertise in treating blast injuries.

quite a self serving agenda.

If you recall right after 9/11 some kook sent Anthrax to US govt offices.
A lot of hue and cry was raised.
In end it got hushed up when it was found that US govt facilities were the source of the anthrax material.

And US has signed all sorts of bio weapons (BWC) agreements.
How did they have this material?

[SaiK]

yeah... and what about the eff up on the b52 circa 2007? it was a dial-a-yield w80*

[Suresh S]

which history book you have been reading Hitesh. The statement you have made about the second world war are completely false. Do not believe western propaganda from hollywood movies like tora, tora, tora and what yamamoto said.Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union in the second world war . Western powers played a minor role. By some accounts 28 million soviet soldiers and civilians died in the war versus less than 1/2 million Americans dead (Just watch the victory day parade in Moscow this year. When the Russian soldiers are marching at that fast speed someone calculated that it had to go on for 2 months continuously day and night to account for all the soviet dead in the second world war. It will bring tears to your eyes for the impossible sacrifice of the russian/soviet people ). And yes Japan did bring USA to it,s knees. Pacific war was won by Americans and it,s vassals, true but some luck (midway, US finding the japanese carriers first and pearl harbor japanese not finding US carriers and not persisting ) and some bad Japanese decision making also helped the americans.This is the wrong thread so no more from me but do not make absolutely non sensical statements.

[ranjbe]

It is worthwhile to look at the Logistics Support Agreement in a macro, world-wide sense, given the dhoti-shivering going on here.
The USA has similar agreements with 76 different countries in the past. Quote:

Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) are negotiated on a bilateral basis with United States allies or coalition partners that allow US forces to exchange most common types of support, including food, fuel, transportation, ammunition, and equipment. The agreement does not, in any way commit a country to any military action.
As of mid-2004, the US had ACSAs with 76 countries, including most NATO nations, as well as the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA), NATO Allied Command Transformation, and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). ACSAs diminish logistics burdens and are considered vital logistics enablers by providing on site commanders increased interoperability, enhanced operational readiness and cost effective joint support. The ACSA accomplishes this by establishing a mechanism to provide logistical supplies between two parties in exchange for reimbursement either in cash, replacement in kind, or equal value exchange.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisiti ... _Agreement

Forget about a non-Nato country like India, NATO countries with a plethora of joint defence commitments have snubbed the USA at various times in the last few decades. For instance, white European NATO allies France, Italy and Spain refused USA overflight rights when Reagan decided to bomb Libya in 1986.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Unit ... g_of_Libya

NATO member Turkey refused to grant USA access to its bases for Gulf War 2 in 2003, so that Iraq had to be invaded only from South.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-us-turkey-relations/p7795

The Philippines kicked out USA from the Clark Air base and Subic Naval base after the Vietnam war. These were occupied by the USA since Philippines was occupied by the US in the early twentieth century. It is another matter that the US is welcomed back now that China is bullying Philippines in the South China sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay

It is baffling how so much dhoti-shivering continues here. India has every right to not honor the treaty when it feels that it is not in its best interests, and so has the US.

[SaiK]

You can make the agreements such that the cosignatory to it also can dhoti-shibber! all it takes is few weapons here and there to show the mastery along with a strong robust economic policy. The fundamental to all these is bringing up the BPL above PL., and the reverse will begin. From our multilateral policies, they are also sure what they are agreeing to. They are not fools to sign something like that to Iran or NoKo or Pakis. It is an entirely different game plan.

In a scratch like this, there are certain hidden benefits that we will only know when we attain basic vikas

[TSJones]

Instead of NBC suits, should have covered BPJs and combat gear and helmets.

That would have been of more use and relevance to us.

looks like they are trying to gain insights into the IA doctor's expertise in treating blast injuries.

quite a self serving agenda.

If you recall right after 9/11 some kook sent Anthrax to US govt offices.
A lot of hue and cry was raised.
In end it got hushed up when it was found that US govt facilities were the source of the anthrax material.

And US has signed all sorts of bio weapons (BWC) agreements.
How did they have this material?

....in order to develop vaccines..... we're allowed to do this.

all US troops are are vaccinated against anthrax.....

what we don't do, is to weaponize it, such as combine various diseases with say.....small pox in on order to vector the disease, unlike a certain country to the far north of India has done in the past.

[UlanBatori]

**deleted**

[KrishnaK]

Don't underestimate the Japanese or misread their "peaceful" posture. A leopard never changes it's spots nor a tiger, it's stripes.
...
They had brought the amrekis to their knees in WWII and that kind of muscle memory in an old war making civilization is not easily lost.

No one compares with the Mongols as far as old war making civilizations are concerned. The wiped out 25% of the world's population at that point in time and trounced pretty much every one they clashed with. How good is their muscle memory at this point you think ?

Their warship, submarine and fighter aircraft building capabilities are second to none. They are only a few screwdriver turns away from becoming a nuke power. They have demonstrated launch capabilities too from their "space" program.

A far more reasonable argument. Japan's engineering capabilities are indeed top-notch. That alone does not make then capable enough to contain let alone take on a country 10 times in population size. For example - how capable is Japn when it comes to constructing a global technology denial regime against China and enforcing it ? Can they block europe from selling military technology to China ? A China with twice Japans' GDP and 10 times in population size with access to europe's technology will bring Japan to heel in short order.

so, it is entirely possible to have a trustworthy transactional relationship with Japan on a military level when they come out of the closet. We are better off with them rather than with the amrekis

This is the problem with emotion. It allows you to jump from old war making civilization to engineering capability to - trustworthy transactional relationship. Sure we can have a trustworthy transactional relationship with Japan. What has that got to do with moderating China's behaviour ?

[chanakyaa]

BRFites are very knowledgeable in this space and subject, so I generally find myself reading more than writing on this dhaga, but I could't resist myself in this case.

Forget about a non-Nato country like India, NATO countries with a plethora of joint defence commitments have snubbed the USA at various times in the last few decades. For instance, white European NATO allies France, Italy and Spain refused USA overflight rights when Reagan decided to bomb Libya in 1986.

In the end, didn't Libya end up getting fcuked?

NATO member Turkey refused to grant USA access to its bases for Gulf War 2 in 2003, so that Iraq had to be invaded only from South.
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-us-turkey-relations/p7795

In the end, didn't Iraq end up getting fcuked? and Turkey finding itself getting f**ed? I mean "na ghar ka na ghat ka"

The Philippines kicked out USA from the Clark Air base and Subic Naval base after the Vietnam war. These were occupied by the USA since Philippines was occupied by the US in the early twentieth century. It is another matter that the US is welcomed back now that China is bullying Philippines in the South China sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay

Last I read Philippines LSA was renewed second time with physical presence on 5 bases.

It is baffling how so much dhoti-shivering continues here. India has every right to not honor the treaty when it feels that it is not in its best interests..

Evidence you have presented is not very strong enough...

[krishna_krishna]

^^^ @Udaym what do you have to say about Vietnam, Iran and recently ookraine, Syyria.

[NRao]

U.S. Defense Secretary In India: A Foundational Visit
http://swarajyamag.com/world/us-defense ... onal-visit

conclusion is nearly right

As India bandwagons with the U.S., it is necessary for New Delhi to have a clear understanding of the ends for which the engagement with Washington is pursued. Then only can India also play the sophisticated game of ‘strategic autonomy’ that this engagement is.

If we have an universal policy, then spill it out is the message. It is okay to be different and powerful yet kind to all Earthians.

A couple of comments on the above post (I removed the images that list the various DTTI projects).

First. "Product Owner" for all but two items is given as "US Government". Not so. It is a joint ownership between the two nations

Second. There is a process which has to be followed for projects to get onto this list, the exceptions being the first few (starter projects) and the last two (being specific Indian requests). The process - at a high level - is: Both nations have to have similar projects (cannot be cooked up at the last minute), the timing of the projects have to coincide (it cannot be that India would like a project to start in 2017 and the US in 2018) and the projects have to be funded by both nations. Only and only then can they be considered for the DTTI framework. Finally both sides would want the project to be co-developed and co-produced. (Which is why the "Project Owner" cannot be "US Government")

So, any conspiracy theories will have to remain for entertainment purposes. : )

[chanakyaa]

Krishnaji, can you be more specific with your question? BRFites have spent hours writing on these countries on separate threads. I'm not qualified to summarize years of writing in few sentences. If there is one thing common in all countries you have listed is they all got screwed, by you know, who..

[Cosmo_R]

^^^"So, any conspiracy theories will have to remain for entertainment purposes. : )"

And that's what we are here for. Irresistible answers meet intractable answers.

[Cosmo_R]

...
Evidence you have presented is not very strong enough...

Could you cite some examples of 'strong' (analogous) evidence that you might consider sufficient?

[krishna_krishna]

Udaymji, these countries screwed one country , you know who (or should I say no design of one country to screw these countries succeeded)