India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3439
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby rsingh » 15 Jun 2016 15:36

Philip wrote:Ravi ,in agreement with you.Why the sh*t should we continue to burden ourselves with a $50B trade deficit with China,which it uses to beef up its military? Impose a 1000% duty on all Chinny products,issue only stapled visas with no visas for Ar.Pr.Kashmir and all N-Eastern states.That will automatically invigorate Indian made in India industry for $50B! A good portion of that can go into local defence industries so that we have more money for the armed forces to deal with China.$10B will give us our 6 SSNs,you get my drift. What really galls me is that almost all Hindu dieties today available in the shops for domestic use ,which used to be made by small handicraft entities and small industries based around our sacred cities,are "made in (Godless,Atheist) Communist China".There should be a campaign led by the Parivar to ban such imports totally.


Let it continue. Soon Chinese will start admiring these Hindu deities and start doing puja. Mind you Chinese are will do anything to get luck.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24155
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 15 Jun 2016 15:59

krishna_krishna wrote:Mean-e-while, India as a special partner bill rejected by Senate :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 759681.cms

India must apply brakes on its rapid intimacy with the US NOW. Wake up & smell the coffee, Mr. Modi. The US is still not clear in its approach. Don't overcommit. Hasten slowly and only after a milestone is achieved, not merely talked about.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arun » 15 Jun 2016 17:04

krishna_krishna wrote:Mean-e-while, India as a special partner bill rejected by Senate :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 759681.cms


The US seems to have backed out of its commitment really rapidly. Posters here on BRF will recollect that the “Official” India-US Joint Declaration of June 7, 2016 stated that “the United States hereby recognizes India as a Major Defense Partner.” (See Here).

Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi will do well to be a great deal more circumspect in dealing with the US given the past history of their unfriendly acts and not get carried away with flattery.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2016 17:12


Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19691
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Karan M » 15 Jun 2016 17:27

^^ Unbelievable that is a noo yawk tahims editorial.

No references to dutty heathens doing yindutva, namecalling the mudy as being a yindutva nationalist etc.

what has happened? has the rise of the donald unnerved these paragons of morality?

ranjbe
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 21:25

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ranjbe » 15 Jun 2016 17:44

CRamS wrote:Not sure what the significance if any is

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/us-se ... 160615.htm


The bill had a number of last minute amendments. John McCain was responsible for a number of these, including the India amendment. With that many amendments, there was enough to rile some Senator or other. I do not believe the India amendment was in dispute. Quote McCain:
McCain said he was particularly disappointed the bill did not include an amendment that would have increased the number of special immigrant visas for Afghans who worked with U.S. forces.

Furthermore, Obama may veto the main bill which was passed (without the amendments).
See:
http://www.rttnews.com/story.aspx?Id=2659587

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby RajeshA » 15 Jun 2016 17:55

Karan M wrote:^^ Unbelievable that is a noo yawk tahims editorial.

No references to dutty heathens doing yindutva, namecalling the mudy as being a yindutva nationalist etc.

what has happened? has the rise of the donald unnerved these paragons of morality?


Most definitely! Right now, Democrats are people who get along with all the people in the world pretty well, and everybody loves Democratic Presidents. It is just that Orange Guy who doesn't get along with anybody.

After the elections are over, Progressives in USA would get back to their regular duty of bashing the Yindoos.

member_27845
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby member_27845 » 15 Jun 2016 18:14



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The reason for this reasonable editorial is in the penultimate para :

"The two sides also announced plans to complete a deal under which India will buy six nuclear reactors from Westinghouse by June 2017, thus fulfilling a promise India made when it persuaded Mr. Bush in 2005 to lift an American ban on selling nuclear
technology to India. The deal has dragged on for years."

So there it is - no mention of CTBT , NPT etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 15 Jun 2016 19:19

NYT will go back to its usual stance after elections.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 15 Jun 2016 19:25

krishna_krishna wrote:Ramana guru, I disagree India will make it through NSG somehow. My reasoning : 1) Rdev's analysis on CPEC if it has to succeed then India should be part of NSG no other way out. 2) The quid pro quo of Westinghouse reactors and other doles remain pipe dreams as well if india is not accomodated


A principle in International treaties is you wont get something unless you give back something else. So whats in it for China?

We need to see what does China want that India can give?
Or else what can India do that will make China agree?

I know its sacrilegious to ask the first question, but while its being debated I think the second is in play right in front of us.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6885
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby habal » 15 Jun 2016 19:43

We already have NSG exemption for nuclear trade, we only need NSG membership for exporting nuclear stuff.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Rudradev » 15 Jun 2016 19:53

Tangentially to this I had a thought.

IFF China stands back and doesn't block India's admission to the NSG, what then?

Will India stand in the way of Pakistan's admission to the NSG? SHOULD India do that?

I think the answer is no. Let Pakistan join NSG, as far as we're concerned. At present they're getting everything from China... fissile material, reactors, n-weapon designs and manufacturing equipment, even though they aren't in the NSG. If they join the NSG, what changes? Do they have money to get these materials on the open market from anyone else but China? No, they are 400% dependent on alms onlee.

In fact it is the US and others who will have a problem with Pakistan getting into NSG (because of whom the Pakis might proliferate TO). Why would we stand in the way? In our case, the Pakis having nukes is a fait accompli, and already worse than anyone else getting nukes from the Pakis would be.

BUT from the Chinese point of view is it a good idea for Pakistan to get into the NSG? NO. Right now they have total monopoly over anything nuclear in Pakistan. Pakis are as dependent on them as a Pindi gardullah is on his Afghan heroin dealer. Once Bakis do join the NSG, other nations are free to rent Pakistan with nuclear-related alms, and China is no longer the only potential source of such alms. End result, China's net ability to exercise influence in Pakistan decreases.

In fact, what the Chinese get out of *the ability to keep India out of the NSG* is this and only this: an irresistible carrot to dangle before the Pakis. "Keep doing our bidding on CPEC, Uighur Islamists etc. and we will prevent your hated enemy from having NSG access." Once India gets into the NSG, half the carrot is gone. Once Pakis get into the NSG, the carrot is entirely gone. So the net-net of India getting into NSG, with a guarantee from India that it will not oppose Pakistan's future entry into the NSG, is: Pakistan wins, China loses, India wins.

So one thing India can do is call Beijing's bluff. Guarantee publicly that we will not oppose Pakistan's entry into NSG if China does not oppose ours. If China still opposes, it is stuck having to explain to its tarrel/deepel fliend why it is following that path (in reality, because it wants to preserve its monopoly over all things nuclear in Pakistan).

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1738
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby schinnas » 15 Jun 2016 20:04

RDev ji,
China has already called out signing NPT also as a precondition.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Gagan » 15 Jun 2016 20:10

India should stop Pakistan's entry just them being wicked, and Pakis, them needing a taste of their viscious medicine, and the fact that karma's job needs to be made easier on the faujis of that nation.

That fauj has caused the deaths of thousands of Indians, and people of other nationalities.

They should NEVER be allowed to even think they are an equal with us.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Gagan » 15 Jun 2016 20:11

I have a feeling that china will relent after it gets what it wants.
There are other allies that I will watch out for.

Is Kazakhistan russia's front? Will massa think that 6 westinghouses are enough? Plenty of people asking for their piece of the cake

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Rudradev » 15 Jun 2016 23:21

Pakistan (as an NSG member) can create much greater headaches for its four fathers than Pakistan (as a non-NSG member) ever could.
e.g.
-It could tell Saudi Arabia "give us free oil or we will transfer XYZ nuclear tech to Iran"
-It could use Uighurs as a leverage against China as necessary... something it wouldn't dare try now as long as China is its sole and only source of all things nuclear
-It could try and arm-twist Unkil by threatening to collaborate on nuclear tech with NoKo
etc.

Given the leverage of NSG membership to pressure its four fathers, and given the history of the Pakis, there is no question that the Pakis will overuse their leverage as an NSG-member and end up F-ing themselves through overreach. Causing major takleef to all four fathers in the process.

OTOH, Pakistan (NSG-member) could do no worse to India than Pakistan (non-NSG member) can. Sure, they can gloat for a week about how "parity" has been established in the world order and that will be that.

The value of NSG-membership as a rope for Pakistan to hang itself with is considerable. The detriment to us of Pakistan getting NSG membership seems to be of only nuisance value.

On the contrary, if Pakistan is NOT an NSG-member... then Pakistan remains like the little dog focused tightly on the sausage being dangled in front of it, leaping and barking and expending all its energy on getting that sausage. This makes Pakistan easy for the four fathers (esp. US and China) to *manage* because they have something it desperately wants. A Pakistan that can be easily managed by its four fathers is a Pakistan that they can use, relatively safely and predictably, as leverage against India onlee.

A Pakistan with illusions of new-found freedom to expand its Bakistaniyat, however, is a boon to India by becoming a more fulminant ulcer for the world to contend with.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby RajeshA » 15 Jun 2016 23:58

Rudradev ji,

NSG decisions are based on consensus. Once India is part of NSG and Pakistan is still not in, then India becomes another father Pakistan has to contend with, which of course goes against its grain.

From Pakistan's view, if Pakistan does not get in at the same time as India, then it would never be able to get in, and thus would be relegated to a dog's position of eternally waiting outside the door.

At least as far as NSG goes, four fathers actually lose their leverage over Pakistan, once India gets in.

I don't see any need to give Pakistan a veto over policies for international nuclear trade or over any initiatives India may be in favor of in the forum. Just see how Pakistan has abused its veto over land access to Central Asia for India. Chahbahar is India's override over that veto. Why should India give Pakistan another means to do panga?

If China is the only country against India's entry, then China may have to rethink and relent. At the moment, NaMo's diplomacy has virtually ensured that that would be the case.

Another thing to note is that all the other NSG members are willing to play ball because Obama is President. In another six months, should Trump become President, other European countries may not be willing to take US lead. Trump may be good for India for various reasons, but Trump wouldn't be good for India as India's champion in international diplomacy. Hence NaMo's push right now for NSG.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby svinayak » 16 Jun 2016 00:10

ramana wrote:
A principle in International treaties is you wont get something unless you give back something else. So whats in it for China?

We need to see what does China want that India can give?
Or else what can India do that will make China agree?

I know its sacrilegious to ask the first question, but while its being debated I think the second is in play right in front of us.

China wants the number 1 position in Asia. They cant have it.
China needs to share it.
China needs support in international forum such as Climate, Asian infra Bank and less adversaries.

Earlier they had made India as a target. from 1978-2008

USA
Pak
China
Asean
Japan --------------------------------------------> India


Now they have made China as the Target from 2008...

USA
India
Japan
Asean
Australia -------------------------------------------> China PRC

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 441
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby rgosain » 16 Jun 2016 00:16

One of the sticks that the GWB administration waved at the PRC in Aug/Sept 2008 when the NSG waiver was being discussed, was to make public the PRC much vaunted record on proliferation before and after its own NPt and NSG accession, at a time when the PRC was preparing to host the 2008 Olympic Games.

The fear that GWB had was of India walking away in 2008 and resuming testing even with an MMS at the helm

There is some evidence that the US is prepared to go beyond the NSG to cement nuclear trade in the commercial sector with India, although it is probably not disclosed
Last edited by rgosain on 16 Jun 2016 00:23, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54781
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby ramana » 16 Jun 2016 00:16

Of the second group with out India they cant do anything to China.
That's a carrot India has.

Australia brings nothing to this game.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby svinayak » 16 Jun 2016 00:21

India being BIG can try to be on both sides

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby krishna_krishna » 16 Jun 2016 03:26

ramana wrote:A principle in International treaties is you wont get something unless you give back something else. So whats in it for China?
[/b]


We need to see what does China want that India can give?
Or else what can India do that will make China agree?

There are many things Chinese want from Tawang to Ladakh list goes on (wish list) from us but that's a discussion for other forum. My principle argument is if China wants to be part of CPEC (which it intends to do) than both China and Massa will find a way to do it , if Chinese do not agree for less price (or a acceptable price), massa would do the twisting and extract their pound of flesh. We could do some trade deals favorable to them as cherry on top like we did with Areva reactors, Russian reactors and westing reactors.

Chinese are playing hard to get but will fall in line for higher bid. That's why putin was rung up by PM to use BRICS levers and or special pressure.

That is the litmus I am using for Rdevji's analysis. So far I am seeing everything going exactly the way he analyzed including Chinese support for NSG. Other signal to watch out for would be when next administration comes there will be pressure on desh to abandon PoK and relationship will go bad.

IF we did not agree then Base in Afganistan , paki help, chinki help in addition to zuman rights would be used. This is where I believe LEMOA comes into play that is why I do not want any additional levers in massa hand. We have already beard ourselves khalistani, dalit , naxalites, tamil etc movement all of them had massa blessings. Massa did everything but still could not break us hence now want to try from within with bases to support designs take it for what its worth.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Manish_Sharma » 16 Jun 2016 04:28

Karan M wrote:^^ Unbelievable that is a noo yawk tahims editorial.

No references to dutty heathens doing yindutva, namecalling the mudy as being a yindutva nationalist etc.

what has happened? has the rise of the donald unnerved these paragons of morality?


The idea is action taken overtly and covertly are somehow unfavourable to Bharat, hussein obama knew the bills are going to fail and prepare their Bharat abuser nytimes in advance for a sweet editorial to soften the blow.

While they outwitted NaMo by having announce "Finalisation of text for lemoa".

Now NaMo should do the needful by having some member in LS objecting to lemoa and send it back for some more editing, let these Bharat hater krusaders get food, oil & food for their fleet somewhere else.

We need to write this to as many parliamentarians as possible.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby krishna_krishna » 16 Jun 2016 05:34

Gurus, one more data point from TOIlet :

"Countries like New Zealand and Austria, following the US diplomatic push which saw secretary of state John Kerry writing to all NSG members asking them to not block the consensus for India's membership, have relented a little and seem willing to work towards a compromise. "

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24155
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 16 Jun 2016 05:44

Rudradev wrote:Tangentially to this I had a thought.

IFF China stands back and doesn't block India's admission to the NSG, what then?

Will India stand in the way of Pakistan's admission to the NSG? SHOULD India do that?

I think the answer is no. Let Pakistan join NSG, as far as we're concerned.

RD, Pakistan has a long way to go before joining NSG. It has to seggregate its military & civilian reactors & facilities, have fullscope safeguards with IAEA, sign the additional protocol etc. The whole works. It took India a few years to comply with all these. Pakistan has not even initiated these processes. So, its hasty application to NSG is simply to stall India's bid. Pakistan would want its application to be considered at the same time as India's so that it can piggyback on the latter or delay consideration of Indian application till NSG is in a position to consider Pakistan's too. China's latest stance that discriminating Pakistan would lead to a nuclear arms race in South Asia is towards such an idea. Pakistan's reasoning on signing NPT conditional to India doing similarly may be reasonable, but extending the same to NSG will not be acceptable to any member save China & Turkey (Both are insisting that applications of both India and Pakistan be considered simultaneously). China knows pretty well that Pakistan will find it very tough to enter NSG on its own merit because of its history of proliferation and nexus with terrorists. Therefore, it is also possible that China is acting only in its own self-interest which is to see its admission into MTCR. It was rejected before because of China’s history in missile proliferation and it has no reasonable chance of admission into it with or without India. Wassenar Arrangement & Australia Group also remain as insurmountable hurdles for it where India will most likely enter sooner or later. India wanted to join all these four groupings (that was the deal with the US) but cleverly unbundled them and made NSG & MTCR as its priority. India had a much better chance into MTCR (apart from Italy Marines issue which was hurriedly settled) and it wanted to use it as a leverage against China for the NSG seat. China would not relent from its opposition until its application to MTCR is concerned. The Seoul plenary would therefore not be the end for India's quest to NSG. We might have to go another round or two. Something has to give way for China. IMO, Pakistan's bid is inconsequential and that is why the US has also said that Pakistan must seek admission on its own merit and India has assured that we would not stand in the way, thereby taking the wind out of that sail.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1394
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chanakyaa » 16 Jun 2016 06:31

Following bill is expected to give short term boost to tourism to YooS as some wrap up personal visits and wire transfers ahead of this becoming a law.. :rotfl:

Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act
This bill authorizes POTUS to impose entry and property sanctions against any foreign person (or entity) who:

- is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights :cry: committed against individuals in any foreign country seeking to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials, or to obtain, exercise, or promote human rights and freedoms; acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in such activities;

- is a government official or senior associate of such official responsible for, or complicit in, ordering or otherwise directing acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions; or

- has materially assisted or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, such activities.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1394
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chanakyaa » 16 Jun 2016 06:38

NATOO Recognizes Cyberspace as New Frontier in Defense (WSJ)
BRUSSELS—Allied defense ministers formally recognized cyberspace as a domain of warfare on Tuesday, an acknowledgment that modern battles are waged not only in air, sea and land, but also on computer networks...

more in the link

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby sivab » 16 Jun 2016 07:24

All India Radio News ‏@airnewsalerts 1h1 hour ago
US Senate passes a legislative amendment which proposes to bring defence sales with #India at par with America's close allies & NATO members


http://deshgujarat.com/2016/06/15/us-se ... ith-india/

The US Senate has passed a legislative amendment as part of the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) 2017 that proposes to bring defence sales with India at par with America’s close allies and NATO members.

The amendment ‘Defence and Security Co-operation with India’ was moved by the Illinois Senator Mark Kirk on May 25 and passed by the US Senate yesterday along with the National Defence Authorization Act-2017.

While the amendment was approved by a voice vote, NDAA- 2017 was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 85-13.

The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, shall ensure that the authorisation of any proposed sale or export of defense articles, defense services, or technical data to India is treated in a manner similar to that of the US’ closest partners and allies, which include NATO members, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Israel and New Zealand,” it says.

As per the amendment, the US President shall endeavor to further align laws, regulations, and systems within India and the US for the facilitation of defense trade and the protection of mutual security interests.

The President shall develop a plan for such facilitation and coordination efforts that identifies key priorities, any impediments, and the timeline for such efforts, it says.

If passed by the Congress, it would require the President to submit to the Congress a report detailing this coordination plan. The US House of Representatives has already passed a similar amendment attached to the NDAA-2017.

However, the House version of the amendment, which was passed by voice vote, which also calls for strengthening of India-US Defense ties, does not specifically mentions bringing the defence trade to that of a NATO ally.

The two versions of the bill would now have to be reconciled by both the Chambers of the Congress through conference. It is only after the common version of the bill is passed, President Barack Obama would sign that into law.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby RoyG » 16 Jun 2016 09:03

Pretty much sums up what I've been thinking for some time. Trump is a political genius. Perhaps a bigger one than Modi. He's going to win this election.




Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Philip » 16 Jun 2016 09:50

Hiranmay Karlekar in the Pioneer.
LESSONS FROM THE ORLANDO ATTACK

Having suffered the trauma of 9/11 and several terror attacks, the US must understand that it needs gun control laws and a comprehensive blueprint for routing terrorism

The terror attack on an LGBT nightclub, Pulse, in Orlando, Florida, raises serious questions for the United States to ponder. The first — and the most obvious — relates to the country’s incredibly lax gun control laws. It is obvious that the mass murderer, Omar Mateen, could embark on his killing spree, which left 50 persons, including himself, dead and 53 wounded, because he could walk into a store and buy a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle and a nine mm Glock handgun. Significantly, he could do so despite his being questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013 and 2014. The first time was after he had made “inflammatory” comments to colleagues about having family connections with Al Qaeda and of his being a member of the Hezbollah. The interrogation in 2014 followed the discovery of his links with Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an Americanjihadist who went to Syria and detonated a suicide bomb. The investigations were closed as they produced no cause for further action.

This itself is a telling commentary on the state of gun control management in the US. There is everything to be said for releasing a person against whom the charge of terrorist links cannot be proved. Equally, there is everything to be said for barring his or her access to guns, particularly of the mass slaughter variety. Such a restriction should have been put in place in the US — which has suffered the trauma of 9/11 and several Islamist terror attacks thereafter — long before the Orlando horror.

One of the most striking attacks was the one on December 2, 2015, when Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple, subsequently described as violent “homegrown extremists,” fired at a Government building in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 persons and seriously wounding 22. Both, who were subsequently killed in an encounter with law enforcing authorities, used 223-caliber semi-automatic rifles and nine mm caliber semi-automatic pistols. These were legally bought by a neighbour and friend but illegally transferred in their names and modified.

In an earlier incident, Nidal Hasan, a US Army major and a psychiatrist, and inspired by the Al Qaeda ideologue and terror-motivator, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone attack on November 30, 2011, killed 13 and wounded more than 30 persons at Fort Worth, a large US military establishment near Killeen, Texas. He bought the FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol he used at a nearby gun shop.

The circumstances which turn a person terrorist is the subject of eternal debate; that the easy availability of weapons of mass slaughter — and even of individual killing — makes it easy for terrorists, is not. Any individual can see this barring the incurably bigoted. It is important to deal with the causes of terrorism and methods of identifying active and/or potential terrorists. As important is the one of dealing with them. In this case, Mateen should not have been allowed off the FBI’s radar. The argument that one cannot look for needles in a haystack is well taken. But there should be system for keeping an eye on those that have come to notice.

Such measures have to be a part of an over all system of coping with terrorism on the ground. The latter, in turn, must be a part of an overall strategy of comprehensively defeating terrorism both ideologically and operationally. The two processes are inseparably linked. The success of a terrorist state or organisation on the ground — particularly if it is seen as carrying everything before it — enhances its ideological glamour and appeal. In this case, the Islamic State, to which Mateen had sworn allegiance, has to be comprehensibly and demonstratively demolished on the ground. There is no alternative, just as there was no alternative to wiping out the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and the Japanese warlords. As in these cases, the ideological campaign against violent extremist Islam must continue.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23335
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 16 Jun 2016 11:27

India downplays US Senate rejecting bill on special status


June 16, 2016
India downplays US Senate rejecting bill on special status


The US Senate failed to recognise India as a "global strategic and defence partner" of the US after a key amendment necessary to modify its export control regulations could not be passed.

India on Thursday downplayed the US Senate rejecting a key amendment recognising the country as “global strategic and defence partner”, saying it would be “premature” to speculate about its final content.

The US had recognised India as a “major defence partner” in a joint statement issued during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit there last week.

“We have seen media reports about non-inclusion of an India-related amendment in the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by the US Senate.

“The preparation of NDAA in the US Congress involves approval of different versions in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and their reconciliation to evolve a single consensual text, which is again put to vote in both chambers.

“The 2017 NDAA is in the process of its formulation and it would be premature to speculate about its final content,” External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said.

He also noted that preparation of NDAA is a process distinct from the decision of the US Government to recognise India as a Major Defence Partner.

“This was an executive decision and already announced in the India—US Joint Statement of June 7. A number of Senators and Congressmen have moved proposals that only seek to reinforce this decision of the US Government.

“It reflects the bipartisan support in the US Congress for stronger defence cooperation between India and the US,” he added.

The US Senate failed to recognise India as a “global strategic and defence partner” of the US after a key amendment necessary to modify its export control regulations could not be passed.

Top Republican senator John McCain had moved an amendment to the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA—17) which if passed would have recognised India as a global strategic and defence partner.

The US had recognised India as a “major defence partner” in a joint statement issued after Mr. Modi held talks with President Barack Obama which supported defence-related trade and technology transfer to the country which would now be treated on par with America’s closest allies.

NDAA was passed by the Senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 85—13. But some of the key amendments including the (SA 4618) — even though they had bipartisan support
.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby nvishal » 16 Jun 2016 11:36

Do not forget the 1971 situation. It is a lesson.

We cannot stifle china without russian consent. Both the chinese and russians have reached a tacit agreement wrt their common enemy. Let me remind you all that our interests also converge with russia-china. The great game has to be broken some day.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby RajeshA » 16 Jun 2016 11:47

So China finally has another country to be part of its tag team - Turkey. For a long time, China did not have many friends in high table organizations, other than Russia, which used to have its own interests. But now China and Turkey seem to be getting on the same page, and that is despite both of them supporting two different sides in the Syria conflict.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23335
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby chetak » 16 Jun 2016 11:56

RajeshA wrote:So China finally has another country to be part of its tag team - Turkey. For a long time, China did not have many friends in high table organizations, other than Russia, which used to have its own interests. But now China and Turkey seem to be getting on the same page, and that is despite both of them supporting two different sides in the Syria conflict.


Turkey needs to be taught an unforgettable lesson.

Need to find the right levers for it.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby arun » 16 Jun 2016 13:08

arun wrote:
krishna_krishna wrote:Mean-e-while, India as a special partner bill rejected by Senate :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 759681.cms


The US seems to have backed out of its commitment really rapidly. Posters here on BRF will recollect that the “Official” India-US Joint Declaration of June 7, 2016 stated that “the United States hereby recognizes India as a Major Defense Partner.” (See Here).

Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi will do well to be a great deal more circumspect in dealing with the US given the past history of their unfriendly acts and not get carried away with flattery.


After reneging on its commitment to India, the US Senate rushes to support the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ................

US Senate approves $800m fund to ‘long-standing strategic partner’ Pakistan : On Thursday, the US Senate had rejected the bill on India's ‘global strategic and defence partner’ status.

Indian Express

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7051
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby JE Menon » 16 Jun 2016 14:03

Guys, the bill has not been rejected... from what I understand this is standard operating procedure to finesse the language, and that is not even on the Indian deal part... This is just our MSM being either malicious, ignorant or ignorantly malicious.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24155
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby SSridhar » 16 Jun 2016 14:38

arun wrote:After reneging on its commitment to India, the US Senate rushes to support the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ................

US Senate approves $800m fund to ‘long-standing strategic partner’ Pakistan : On Thursday, the US Senate had rejected the bill on India's ‘global strategic and defence partner’ status.

Indian Express

Of the promised aid, $300 million will be given to Pakistan if it launches an operation against the Haqqani Network.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Philip » 16 Jun 2016 15:03

http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/a-fres ... and-china/
A FRESH TAKE ON AMERICAN RELATIONS WITH INDIA AND CHINA
ANDREW SMALLJUNE 14, 2016

Anja Manuel, This Brave New World: India, China and the United States (Simon & Schuster, 2016).

Building an airstrip on the Spratly Islands is, as one Chinese diplomat reassuringly informs Anja Manuel in her new book, “like building a fountain in your own backyard.” China’s expanding appetite for water-features has undoubtedly been one of the driving forces behind deepening U.S.-India ties in recent years. In This Brave New World, however, Manuel pushes back against the urge to make counterbalancing China the foundation of America’s relationship with India.

The central contention of her book that the United States should seek to “forge harmonious relationships with both giants” is so deceptively straightforward that it can sound almost banal. Yet in the context of current debates about the U.S. relationship with Asia’s largest powers, it is more subtle and challenging than it first appears. Not only is Manuel concerned that U.S.-China policy risks turning into a “balance only approach,” she sees risks in an approach to India where we simply “assume it is a friend and smooth over many disagreements to make this friendship a reality.”

This is certainly not out of any Sino-fetishism. Part of the book’s purpose is to encourage us to look beyond the “obsessive” focus on the centrality of the Middle Kingdom to U.S. strategy. Manuel contends, “We tend to underestimate India’s size and future power. Many still doubt the relevance of India as a global power. They should not.” Indeed, Manuel would know. Her role at the U.S. State Department a decade ago put her in the thick of the action as watershed civil-nuclear deal negotiations with India opened the door to today’s growing strategic partnership. But an important element of her argument is that giving India the strategic attention it merits means taking its distinct role in the new geopolitical order more seriously — and being less sanguine about how straightforward this transition is going to be. “We assume that we share values and already have a strong ‘partnership’ in most areas” she cautions, yet while “right now our relationship with India is positive” this is “mostly because India is equally worried about China”.

Gentle nudges against conventional wisdom are found throughout the book. Manuel cautions us against assuming that India is quite as like-minded as its democratic culture and burgeoning friendship with the United States might imply. She also asserts that China’s rise is not quite as antithetical to U.S. interests as its autocratic political system and military assertiveness might suggest. She offers each country’s behavior at the United Nations as case in point:

When India served as a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council from 2011 to 2012, American officials tell me, they nearly tore their hair in frustration.

In contrast, China voted more often with the United States in the U.N. General Assembly than India in 2014. On the subject of trade, Manuel notes that India seems “stuck in the nonaligned movement and protectionist rhetoric of the Nehru era.” On climate, she reports that “India’s initial steps on clean technology are not nearly as impressive as China’s,” and that “Chinese officials are more progressive” on this issue.

Manuel does not pull her punches on China. She speculates about whether Xi Jinping wears a bulletproof vest as a result of all the enemies he has made and explores whether we want to see a Chinese Arab Spring. Beijing’s “aggressive…constant barrage of attacks” in the cyber realm and “bullying” of its neighbors are also subjects of scrutiny. But the author is inclined to see all of this as a manifestation of the impetuosity of new powers, requiring some balancing, yes, but also patience and “coaching.”

She sees the picking of sides as a dangerous approach, liable to result in a “twenty-first century cold war,” or even hot war:

Many in the United States today call for us to repeat, in essence, the policy that Britain pursued in the late nineteenth century: to support the rise of India, a democracy, and other like-minded countries, as a counter- weight against the growing power of authoritarian China. I believe that this strategy alone will not succeed, just as it did not succeed for Britain.

While the U.S. relationships with India and China will inevitably look different, she advocates an overarching commonality of approach — accommodating both powers’ legitimate interests wherever possible, pushing back on aggressive behavior while seeking to avoid exacerbating any sense of insecurity, and patiently coaxing both “adolescent” powers to accept a responsible global role.

Many security analysts would react against this. The emerging consensus, including among swathes of the current U.S. administration, is that any reorientation of China policy needs to be in the direction of a more forceful pushback against Chinese assertiveness, and that hopes of responsible Chinese stakeholding have largely evaporated, at least in the Asia Pacific. But This Brave New World — although it certainly deals with military issues — is not a classic cocktail of great power competition, first island chains, carrier-killer missiles, and the South China Sea. Its reach is far wider, ranging with equal facility across energy and the environment, demographics, gender, corruption, inequality, geo-economics, and domestic politics. Manuel’s vantage point is helpful here: She currently sits in the Bay Area, as a partner and co-founder of RiceHadleyGates, which draws on the standing and reach of the former senior officials that adorn the firm’s name. The book owes as much to the corporate and tech worlds as the DC policy universe, and the anecdotes, personalities, and analysis are richer for the breadth. Much contemporary “big think” writing on China and India still presents a partial view, privileging one region or strand of policy at a time when senior decision-makers are having to take an almost unmanageably multifaceted picture into account. This Brave New World does as much as any book I’ve read to stitch all the different threads together. The effect is to place current frictions with China and bonhomie with India in an expansive context that gives somewhat less weight to both.

The value of the book does not depend, though, on whether or not one buys the argument that China and India are powers amenable to tutelage of the sort that the British provided to a rising America at the turn of the century. Much of the book is not thesis-driven. The chapters lead us deftly through a parallel evaluation of the two states, their histories, their economies, contemporary politics, policy processes, strategic behavior, and a series of thematic areas. For China and India hands, stretches of the material will be familiar but the comparative framework — which can often work poorly in treatments of the two countries —here tends to illuminate and enliven the material. As does the access to leading figures in both Beijing and New Delhi, from Liu He to Arun Jaitley, which is judiciously deployed and admirably free of backscratching. Even those who are deaf to the overarching plea that “we can and must do better than simply balancing the power of China by supporting India and others” will still find it an excellent primer. Whether one sympathizes with the thrust of Manuel’s argument to “make cooperation the dominant part of interaction,” however, may depend on how one sees Miranda’s invocation of a “brave new world” in the last act of Shakespeare’s Tempest.

One response will echo her father Prospero’s world-weary rejoinder, “’Tis new to thee.” The context of Miranda’s seemingly wide-eyed rhapsody about “how beauteous mankind is” is the sight of a group of power-hungry usurpers and traitors who stole her father’s dukedom. They have only been taught their lesson by Prospero’s (distinctly unipolar) exercise of command over them on the island that provides the stage for the play. In the absence of Prospero’s magic, there is little indication that they would have much inclination to be responsible stakeholders. The other response, however, sees Miranda’s words as redemptive rather than naïve: despite having recently learned her family’s tragic history, treating potential adversaries with empathy and choosing the non-cynical perspective — like Manuel’s — is a precondition for the better world she wants to build.

Andrew Small is a senior transatlantic fellow on the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. He is the author of The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby svinayak » 16 Jun 2016 21:58

Does India want an ‘undersea wall’ to detect Chinese submarines?
BY AT EDITOR on JUNE 16, 2016 in ASIA TIMES NEWS & FEATURES, CHINA, INDIA
(From The National Interest)
http://atimes.com/2016/06/does-india-wa ... ubmarines/

By Abhijit Singh

Is India planning to install undersea surveillance sensors in the Bay of Bengal?

It is a question that has animated discussions in maritime circles recently. A recent report in the Indian media suggests New Delhi is planning to undertake joint projects with Japan and the United States for the defense of its littoral spaces, including one for the installation of a sound surveillance sensors (SOSUS) chain in India’s near seas. In an article for a Indian defense magazine in April this year, Prasun Sengupta, a well-known analyst and commentator, surmises that New Delhi is considering Japanese assistance in the construction of an undersea network of seabed-based sensors stretching from the tip of Sumatra right up to Indira Point in the Bay of Bengal to prevent Chinese submarines from approaching Indian exclusive economic zone.

Against the backdrop of a recent logistical agreement with the United States, and with other foundational pacts like the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation in the pipeline, there are concerns that the establishment of an undersea sensor chain around the Andaman and Nicobar islands might be a precursor to the placement of area-denial weapons – a move that Beijing would deem “escalatory.”

Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9256
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Postby Hari Seldon » 17 Jun 2016 07:04

Meanwhile in Umrika ...

Image

Feminazism is out of control in matters of family law say Men's rights movements. Well, conversion from one true faith to the one true faith could suitably help matters, perhaps ...


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma and 60 guests