India-US relations: News and Discussions III

[Arjun]

^There's a difference between arms-length business transaction and money paid to a non-governmental "Foundation"....what was the consideration for Saudi government donations to Clinton NGO ? I can understand private individuals but why would a government want to donate to an NGO run by political family in any case ???

[chetak]

^There's a difference between arms-length business transaction and money paid to a non-governmental "Foundation"....what was the consideration for Saudi government donations to Clinton NGO ? I can understand private individuals but why would a government want to donate to an NGO run by political family in any case ???

The saudi royals have a personal relationship with the bush family from oil connections way back.

If the clinton family is available on the cheap, why not hedge their bets for chump change??

[g.sarkar]

US press has commented on many negative things about the Clinton family namely Billary. But, none have said that their foundation funds were directed to personal use. Even their foundation is not governmental, it is not without supervision. Anything that deals with Billary is investigated by the press. On the other hand many have commented that the foundation is doing good work world wide. With Donald Trump there is no arms length business deal. Read the reports how he short changed his small suppliers, who could not afford to take him to court. Saudis have paid money to many people, and to both sides of the aisle. Donald Trump too has done that, including the Clinton Foundation. None of these donations have been found to be illegal by US law. Billary is also legally collecting millions of dollars for the election.
Anyway, US election is off the topic here, so I will stop.
Gautam

[arshyam]

Folks, can we please move US election related discussions to the "understanding us" thread? There is enough Indo-US stuff to discuss in light of recent developments, without having this non stop election campaign hijack this thread for the umpteenth time.

[Viv S]

Folks, can we please move US election related discussions to the "understanding us" thread? There is enough Indo-US stuff to discuss in light of recent developments, without having this non stop election campaign hijack this thread for the umpteenth time.

Okay. Just two more things and then I'm done.

[Viv S]

ONE:

A stunningly powerful video. I don't know who made it but the editing is superb.

An absolute must watch for anybody who's wondering how high the stakes really are. Not just for a US citizen but any citizen of the world.







(Also I never realized what a good public speaker Ronald Reagan was.)

[Viv S]

TWO:

If people do not want to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, they can vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. I think many Americans simply have never heard of Stein or Johnson. It's unfortunate.

Its a pity Johnson's not really in fight (though he has the power to tip the odds by messing up polling calculations).

Still.. good initiative.


The Balanced Rebellion

[RoyG]

Viv S,

Do you honestly believe that w/ the idea of american exceptionalism, amount of special interest, and general consistency of national security policy that the stakes are really that high?

Democracy is like a river that overtime will soften the edges of even the most jagged rock.

America is no exception.

[Viv S]

Viv S,

Do you honestly believe that w/ the idea of american exceptionalism, amount of special interest, and general consistency of national security policy that the stakes are really that high?

Democracy is like a river that overtime will soften the edges of even the most jagged rock.

America is no exception.

I didn't say anything about 'American Exceptionalism', etc.

That said, the US has the largest economy in a world which is more globalized than ever before. The fallout of any economic crisis (of the sort the self-proclaimed 'King of Debt' has promised) will inevitably transcend national boundaries.

More importantly, the US has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world (possibly largest in terms of deployed warheads) and the temperament of the person with his/her finger on the button is something that ought to concern everybody in the world.

[panduranghari]

Viv S,

Do you honestly believe that w/ the idea of american exceptionalism, amount of special interest, and general consistency of national security policy that the stakes are really that high?

Democracy is like a river that overtime will soften the edges of even the most jagged rock.

America is no exception.

“The astonishing fact about America is that the state would be designed to protect the individual’s “metaphysical” rights of life, freedom, and property.

Locke’s political philosophy provides a basis for American exceptionalism and a theme that will reappear across American diplomacy from colonial times to the present: that America at once is, and is not, a part of the international state system. Private property is at the heart of Locke’s theory, as indispensable for freedom as it is for material accumulation. In America (Locke always italicizes the name), property is not finite but infinitely available. This breaks the Old World link between property and the bounded territory of a state. “America,” Locke wrote, “is made both continuous and discontinuous with already extant nation-states by relegating the business of making new landed property, and the state-making associated with that possession, to a place outside the system of nations.” This will make the United States’ recognition of, and relationship to, “the international” an ambiguous matter.”

Excerpt From: Hill, Charles. “Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order.” Yale University Press, 2010-05-31T15:00:00+00:00. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

[RoyG]

Viv S,

Do you honestly believe that w/ the idea of american exceptionalism, amount of special interest, and general consistency of national security policy that the stakes are really that high?

Democracy is like a river that overtime will soften the edges of even the most jagged rock.

America is no exception.

I didn't say anything about 'American Exceptionalism', etc.

That said, the US has the largest economy in a world which is more globalized than ever before. The fallout of any economic crisis (of the sort the self-proclaimed 'King of Debt' has promised) will inevitably transcend national boundaries.

More importantly, the US has the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world (possibly largest in terms of deployed warheads) and the temperament of the person with his/her finger on the button is something that ought to concern everybody in the world.

Those are very superficial arguments. I assure you, the next POTUS just like all before them, won't clown in front of the nuclear football especially when surrounded by a full fledged national security team and after attending an endless number of debriefings.

He is human and has interests like the rest of us. Do you think he would work this hard for the presidency only to see his decades of hard work evaporate in a flash?

The point I'm getting at is there is a deep culture and national security architecture (which includes the economy) which is relatively insulated from drastic change from POTUS.

[ShauryaT]

Admiral Bhagwat’s take on LEMOA

The signing is an act of Capitulation – it signals to the world that we are no longer capable of defending ourselves and that we depend henceforth on the US Military Umbrella to defend India , notwithstanding the belated clarification from the Ministry of Defense that this Agreement does not provide for Bases etc , an eye wash emanating from an organ which has neither studied nor has an understanding of history, geo-politics or strategy. The Agreement secures no security , it worsens insecurity and gravely damages our defenses.

The fact is that with this– we have ceased to be an Independent Power , ceased to be an Independent Pole in an an emerging multi-polar world …capitulated to serve as ‘cannon fodder ‘ to the ‘principled US strategic security architecture in Asia’ in other words the ‘Pivot to Asia’ and South Asia.

This Agreement has been signed at a point of time when Brzezinski has already declared that the United States can no longer control and manage the world and has stated that the US will now work with China and Russia ( Brzezinski has already silently dismissed any mention of India because of our capitulation to the US and its objectives for Asia).( See the US -China Summit Joint Statements– 2014 & 2015)

Further this Agreement and its predictable trajectory demoralises the Indian Armed forces and will steadily erode/diminish their confidence in strategic planning and the capacity to undertake joint operations independently (as in the ‘War of Movement’ in Bangladesh that achieved our politico-military objectives in just 12 days with 93,000 POWs laying down arms). It increases the chances of manipulation of the Indian military to secure US political, military, business/economic objectives in South Asia and the Region in ways that are an open secret in many countries the world over, including NATO members and Europe.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric emanating from top level officials of the US Administration in Washington and during their visits to New Delhi in the 25 years, those of us who have witnessed contemporary history recall that Empires don’t build great powers, they build clients and great dependencies or at most bequeath to the supplicants — ‘Most Important Non-NATO Ally’ (Honorary) status —and this trajectory, and what it does, is visible across the world as you have described.

As you have written LEMOA is likely to destabilise/rupture multi-segment, strategic agreements in place to strengthen our capabilities and capacities over a wide spectrum and open up new fronts of distrust, built up painstakingly over decades.

What is worrying is that this ‘thin end of the wedge’ is signed just at the time that it will do irretrievable damage. Are we so susceptible, so vulnerable, so myopic, just when the old order or if you like the ‘New World Order’ is in terminal decline and the Dollar System so fragile!?

If the Nation is indeed Sovereign , as it is claimed , this agreement needs to be ‘suspended’ or put in the freezer for the good of both sides , for even the saner elements, here and there, should clearly foresee that it must lead to ‘structured chaos’ which is uncontrollable and unpredictable, as I repeat, in its consequences.

[Arjun]

High level fluff on "World Order" by a person who was sacked from his post by NDA-1, and morover does not understand economics.

India becoming an independant pole does not dependant on military alignments now but on how it does economically over the next 30 years.

Immediate priority is to deal with Pakistan & the rabid bully China whose true face is coming to the fore only now for Indians who are getting familiar with its belligerence and uncouth behavior / language.

[NRao]

Post-LEMOA, will US troops be lodged in India? P Chidambaram on India signing its first such agreement

The US laid stress on the fact that it had signed the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) with a hundred countries. What has been signed between India and the US is not LSA but a modified version called LEMOA. Obviously, both sides have yielded to each other’s concerns. (AP)

Last week, India and the United States quietly signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA). The agreement had been under discussion since 2002. NDA I and the UPA government, especially the ministry of defence under Mr AK Antony, were not in favour. The Congress party too had reservations. The Left parties stoutly opposed the proposal. The discussions dragged on.

The US laid stress on the fact that it had signed the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) with a hundred countries. What has been signed between India and the US is not LSA but a modified version called LEMOA. Obviously, both sides have yielded to each other’s concerns.

The agreement has not been made public. We only have a press release and some comments made by the minister of defence, Mr Manohar Parrikar, and his counterpart, Mr Ashton Carter. Both were at pains to emphasise that the agreement was not a ‘military pact’.

Who needs whom more

At present, we can draw our conclusions, preliminary of course, only on the basis of the press release. The agreement is in two parts: one part deals with obligations that have been agreed upon and the other part deals with obligations that may be undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

There are five situations in which both sides are obliged to provide logistics support. They are:

authorised port visits; joint exercises; joint training; humanitarian assistance; and disaster relief

The question is how likely is it that India will call upon the US to provide logistics support? How often is an Indian long-range vessel (we have one aircraft carrier) likely to visit a US port? How often is an IAF aircraft likely to operate far beyond Indian bases, and why would they do so? As far as humanitarian assistance or disaster relief is concerned, are Indian personnel likely to be deployed in the Americas or Europe? In my view, Indian defence forces are not likely to be deployed in any theatre, even in peace time, beyond our borders with Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar—at best they may go near Sri Lanka or Maldives. In any of those situations, there is little or nothing that the US can offer in terms of logistics support under the agreement.

On the other hand, the US is more likely to need India’s port services and logistics support. The US’ theatres of operation are all over the world, including the Middle East, Asia-Pacific region and the South China Sea. US vessels and aircraft are routinely deployed in these theatres for reconnaissance, surveillance and sometimes even as a deterrent operation.

Only time will tell which side calls upon the other side to provide logistics support and how often. That the US has entered into one hundred such agreements and India has signed its first such agreement is sufficient indication of who needs it more!

A significant shift?

The definition of logistics support is unexceptionable, but it is the unexceptionable that sometimes becomes the unthinkable. ‘Logistics Support, Supplies and Services’ is defined to include food, water, billeting, transportation, petroleum, oils, lubricants, clothing, communication services, medical services, storage services, training services, spare parts and components, repair and maintenance services, calibration services, and port services. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with that list. How will it be applied in practice is the million-dollar question.

Take, for example, ‘billeting’. The dictionary meaning of the word is “a place where troops are lodged”. Then there are services like communication services, storage services, training services, repair and maintenance services and calibration services. Will US troops be lodged in India? Is it likely that the logistics services will be allowed to be provided by Indians to US defence services such as warships, combat aircraft, US Marines or Navy Seals? Will not the US demand that Americans (usually defence personnel) be allowed to enter India to provide these services to their men and equipment? If that happens, will it not be the first time that India would have allowed foreign defence personnel to be stationed on Indian soil (maybe temporarily)? {How often does it happen elsewhere?}

The other part of the agreement is the ‘may be undertaken’ part. According to the press release, “logistics support for any other cooperative efforts shall only be provided on a case-by-case basis”. So far, so good, but the two countries appear to have tacitly agreed to enlarge the cooperation between the defence forces of the two countries.

More than handshake

Sure, LEMOA is not a military pact. Nevertheless, it is a fair conclusion that it is more than a handshake between the two countries, they have embraced each other! The world is watching, especially Russia, which has been our main supplier so far, and China. LEMOA will certainly be seen as an Indian endorsement of the US policy of ‘pivot to Asia’. {So, is this the cat, the concern?}

That is why editorials and commentators have cautioned that enhanced defence cooperation—following the designation of India by the US as a ‘major defence partner’—should not affect India’s strategic military neutrality or ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The exhortations are valid because the US is keen to sign two more ‘foundational agreements’—the Communications Interoperability & Security Memorandum of Agreement and the Basic Exchange & Cooperation Agreement.

If the government believes that LEMOA is indeed reciprocal—not merely in its words but in the benefits that will accrue to both countries—it should make the document public and invite a public debate.

[RoyG]

High level fluff on "World Order" by a person who was sacked from his post by NDA-1, and morover does not understand economics.

India becoming an independant pole does not dependant on military alignments now but on how it does economically over the next 30 years.

Immediate priority is to deal with Pakistan & the rabid bully China whose true face is coming to the fore only now for Indians who are getting familiar with its belligerence and uncouth behavior / language.

Correct. We will have to work w/ them to neutralize Pak-China axis.

We have to break out of this regional box.

[ShauryaT]

High level fluff on "World Order" by a person who was sacked from his post by NDA-1, and morover does not understand economics.

Arjun: Do you claim to understand national and geo-political strategy more than Adm. Bhagwat? Do you actually know the reasons and causes of his sacking, is that material to the discussion at hand? Do you know about his standing and credibility amongst Indian armed forces?

Disagree, but do not disparage the man's service record for no cause or bring in extraneous factors that have no bearing on the issue at hand. He is as honorable as they come and you have no locus standi to disparage an ex CNS and CSC. If all you are doing is Modi is great and seek to bring in your usual partisan political view points, then I do not think it really adds any value to the view points on hand.

[Kashi]

Arjun: Do you claim to understand national and geo-political strategy more than Adm. Bhagwat? Do you actually know the reasons and causes of his sacking, is that material to the discussion at hand? Do you know about his standing and credibility amongst Indian armed forces?

Disagree, but do not disparage the man's service record for no cause or bring in extraneous factors that have no bearing on the issue at hand. He is as honorable as they come and you have no locus standi to disparage an ex CNS and CSC. If all you are doing is Modi is great and seek to bring in your usual partisan political view points, then I do not think it really adds any value to the view points on hand.

So you are quick to jump to the defence of "Adm. Bhagwat" citing his "honourable" service record and yet you accuse the other poster of indulging in partisan politics and drag in PM Modi, when the didn't even mention him in his post. I'll leave it to your judgement as to what value it adds "to the view points on hand.".

Let's debate the views and contents and stop disparaging the messenger. For instance, you could have added a note on why you think that Adm. Bhagwat's points have merit and others may reply accordingly.

It's interesting that Adm. Bhagwat's comments are hosted on Bharat Karnad's website. But ignoring the tangent, let's examine the contents themselves.

Adm. Bhagwat uses some very strong words- "The signing is an act of Capitulation",
"The Agreement secures no security , it worsens insecurity and gravely damages our defenses.",
"Further this Agreement and its predictable trajectory demoralises the Indian Armed forces and will steadily erode/diminish their confidence in strategic planning and the capacity to undertake joint operations independently"
"As you have written LEMOA is likely to destabilise/rupture multi-segment, strategic agreements in place to strengthen our capabilities and capacities over a wide spectrum and open up new fronts of distrust, built up painstakingly over decades."

Adm. Bhagwat offers no explanations, no suggestions, buttressing his views. For instance, why does he feel that this agreement will " demoralises the Indian Armed forces and will steadily erode/diminish their confidence in strategic planning". What aspects of the agreement are likely to lead to this?

Furthermore, why does he feel that "LEMOA is likely to destabilise/rupture multi-segment, strategic agreements in place.."? Which agreements is he talking about and how will LEMOA "destabilise" them?

The least the "honorable" ex CNS could do was share his understanding of this matter in more depth than above.

[chetak]

Arjun: Do you claim to understand national and geo-political strategy more than Adm. Bhagwat? Do you actually know the reasons and causes of his sacking, is that material to the discussion at hand? Do you know about his standing and credibility amongst Indian armed forces?

Disagree, but do not disparage the man's service record for no cause or bring in extraneous factors that have no bearing on the issue at hand. He is as honorable as they come and you have no locus standi to disparage an ex CNS and CSC. If all you are doing is Modi is great and seek to bring in your usual partisan political view points, then I do not think it really adds any value to the view points on hand.

So you are quick to jump to the defence of "Adm. Bhagwat" citing his "honourable" service record and yet you accuse the other poster of indulging in partisan politics and drag in PM Modi, when the didn't even mention him in his post. I'll leave it to your judgement as to what value it adds "to the view points on hand.".

Let's debate the views and contents and stop disparaging the messenger. For instance, you could have added a note on why you think that Adm. Bhagwat's points have merit and others may reply accordingly.

It's interesting that Adm. Bhagwat's comments are hosted on Bharat Karnad's website. But ignoring the tangent, let's examine the contents themselves.

Adm. Bhagwat uses some very strong words- "The signing is an act of Capitulation",
"The Agreement secures no security , it worsens insecurity and gravely damages our defenses.",
"Further this Agreement and its predictable trajectory demoralises the Indian Armed forces and will steadily erode/diminish their confidence in strategic planning and the capacity to undertake joint operations independently"
"As you have written LEMOA is likely to destabilise/rupture multi-segment, strategic agreements in place to strengthen our capabilities and capacities over a wide spectrum and open up new fronts of distrust, built up painstakingly over decades."

Adm. Bhagwat offers no explanations, no suggestions, buttressing his views. For instance, why does he feel that this agreement will " demoralises the Indian Armed forces and will steadily erode/diminish their confidence in strategic planning". What aspects of the agreement are likely to lead to this?

Furthermore, why does he feel that "LEMOA is likely to destabilise/rupture multi-segment, strategic agreements in place.."? Which agreements is he talking about and how will LEMOA "destabilise" them?

The least the "honorable" ex CNS could do was share his understanding of this matter in more depth than above.

re the ex CNS, it was his politically ambitious and rabid commie wife who was his downfall. The couple litigated at the drop of a hat and gamed the system to climb the greasy pole.

personally, the guy was a sanctimonious prude, prone to moralistic preaching and arrogant to the core.

The only saving grace was that he was honest. One of the very few.

in the end, george fernandes took some of his loose comments seriously and brought in a totally unqualified fundamentalist who cashed in.

[svinayak]

Post-LEMOA, will US troops be lodged in India? P Chidambaram on India signing its first such agreement
Sure, LEMOA is not a military pact. Nevertheless, it is a fair conclusion that it is more than a handshake between the two countries, they have embraced each other! The world is watching, especially Russia, which has been our main supplier so far, and China. LEMOA will certainly be seen as an Indian endorsement of the US policy of ‘pivot to Asia’. {So, is this the cat, the concern?}

That is why editorials and commentators have cautioned that enhanced defence cooperation—following the designation of India by the US as a ‘major defence partner’—should not affect India’s strategic military neutrality or ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The exhortations are valid because the US is keen to sign two more ‘foundational agreements’—the Communications Interoperability & Security Memorandum of Agreement and the Basic Exchange & Cooperation Agreement.

If the government believes that LEMOA is indeed reciprocal—not merely in its words but in the benefits that will accrue to both countries—it should make the document public and invite a public debate.

This agreement LEMOA follows from the US India defence agreement first signed in 2005. Why dont they also analyse that agreement and see Why India has to sign that agreement.

India also should have tested more weapons so that India would have more bargaining power.

[Lilo]

No ‘compassion’ for NGO in India leaves Kerry worried
SUHASINI HAIDAR VIJAITA SINGH

MHA says it will relook at FCRA ban case on Compassion International

Raising the pressure on the government on the issue of NGOs, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry voiced concerns over the treatment of American NGO Compassion International at the strategic and commercial dialogue held here this week, Indian and American officials present at the meeting confirmed to The Hindu.

Mr. Kerry’s request is the highest level at which the NGO issue has ever been taken up bilaterally, though the government’s action against Christian and climate change NGOs has been a thorn in India-U.S. relations for over six years. Officials say they may reconsider their action after the request.

According to very senior officials of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Ms. Swaraj told Mr. Kerry at the meeting: “India expects all NGOs operating here to adhere to our rules and regulations.”

However, the government also directed the MHA to look at the case again.

Kerry raised NGO issue with Sushma

According to the officials, Mr. Kerry spoke to Ms. Swaraj directly, asking that India reconsider its move to put Compassion International on its ‘prior permission’ list on March 28, cancelling its ability to transfer funds directly to NGOs in the country.

Asked whether Compassion International could now be removed from the ‘prior permission’ list, a senior North Block official told The Hindu: “We have received the request. We may consider it.”

Mr. Kerry’s request was unusual not just because it was taken up at the highest level, but because he singled out the Colorado-based Christian advocacy group for consideration, out of several U.S. NGOs currently under extra scrutiny by the MHA’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) division. The other NGOs are Mercy Corps, the National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Compassion International had been under scrutiny for transferring funds to a Chennai-based NGO and other non-FCRA- registered NGOs, including one allegedly involved in religious conversions, an MHA official told The Hindu. “We put them on the watch list after monitoring them for many months.”

According to the data with the MHA, Compassion International was the top foreign donor during 2012-13 when it donated Rs. 183.83 crore to NGOs in India, and had been transferring approximately Rs. 150 crores every year since then until it was put on the ‘prior permission’ list.

Sikularism as practiced by "liberal" Democrats of Massa.
Atleast with Republicans these things will be overt and in your face - hence a Hindu response can be mobilized.
I must say the Indian origin Hindu americans who sanctimoniously support Hillary may as well have empty sockets for their eyes .

[Arjun]

Arjun: Do you claim to understand national and geo-political strategy more than Adm. Bhagwat?

From what I can see of his background and touching deference to the views of cold war dinosaur Brezinski - his understanding of geo-politics seems outdated - and nothing in his background suggests an understanding of geo-economics.

All Bhagwat has done is to throw out several strong and provocatory statements and phrases ("capitulation"...??) without providing any basis whatsoever to back them up. Logic does not seem to be the gentleman's strong suit.

Contrast this article with that of Chidambaram above, which I would definitely not accuse of lacking in detail until perhaps the very end...Chidambaram actually does do a very good job of getting into the nitty-gritties - in the end the strongest and indeed only refutation of LEMOA he is able to come up with is: "LEMOA will certainly be seen as an Indian endorsement of the US policy of ‘pivot to Asia’....hardly something that should get anyone deeply worked up. Morover, even Chidambaram here fails to explain why India needs to be in any way seen as opposing the US 'pivot to Asia'.

Disagree, but do not disparage the man's service record for no cause or bring in extraneous factors that have no bearing on the issue at hand.

Disagree...his public fallout with NDA-1 MAY (note the use of the word MAY) well have a bearing on his current views and readers here need to know about it.

More on his political views here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 099452.cms

There is enough to suggest that Vishnu Bhagwat MAY be the partisan party here - though one cannot be certain about it.

If all you are doing is Modi is great and seek to bring in your usual partisan political view points, then I do not think it really adds any value to the view points on hand.

Happy to discuss my political views on a separate thread - but the fundamental basis of it is 'aspirational' politics as opposed to "politics of victimhood"...Modi as a person is irrelevant - if anyone else or any other party other than BJP comes along with better communication of and ability to execute on aspirational politics he/ they get my backing.

[arshyam]

Post-LEMOA, will US troops be lodged in India? P Chidambaram on India signing its first such agreement
<snip>
If the government believes that LEMOA is indeed reciprocal—not merely in its words but in the benefits that will accrue to both countries—it should make the document public and invite a public debate.

This is the key. One wonders why it's not made public yet. The lack of openness in a government that has generally been more transparent than its predecessors is what gives a cause for concern.

[Paul]

Maz and I met Admiral Bhagwat in San Mateo after his dismissal. He had come to Stanford at the invitation of Condee Rice who was not Sec yet.

I agree with Chetak's assess men for the most part. Admiral Bhagwat's son was in the submarine force manning one of the Kilos. For that one act, he deserves our gratitude. Very much in favour of "make in India"

Fernandes may have been swayed by religious considerations in bringing Sushil whose religion was carefully underplayed during his appointment. This guy made money off the Barak deal too.

[Philip]

The symbolism of the signing is more than the actuals in the fine print of the agreement.I agree with the good Adm. that it shows us up as being deficient in defending our interests without external help.I would not go so far as to say capitulation,but it is the thin end of the wedge.If US spares,logistic material is stored at Indian ports,who will safeguard /monitor them? Indian forces? No way! The US will insist upon its own uniformed tribes to do so and that would mean a "permanent" basing of US forces in key Indian ports and bases which will give them a huge intel capability on Indian forces which they can easily pass on to "rent-boy" Pak.We will now be seen as a Yanqui "would-be lackey".

It also makes a mockery of our independent strategic posture and has immediately brought with it a binding at the hip of the Sino_Pak defence/strat relationship.In fact Pak and China are now using the agreement to up the ante in their ties making Pak in truth a Chinese province,extremely damaging for India.India now cannot object to Chinese troops being based in Pak henceforth and the full extent of the Chinese "occupation" of Pak is inevitable.We have been terribly myopic in this aspect. China can now go full steam ahead with its delivery of more nuclear and missile tech to Pak to encircle India both from Tibet and POK/Pak.

Thirdly,what defence benefits really accrue from the accord? It is the US that is gaining more than India. All our cutting edge mil eqpt is of Soviet/Russian origin.Nuclear subs,BMos missiles,Flankers,S-400s,etc.What equiv eqpt. has the US given us? It now wants to sell us outdated F-16s and F-18s! When the US still refuses us to exercise with their Central Command in the area that is the most important to us,the Arabian Sea,Gulf and MEast,while exerceising only with Pak,why should we allow it support facilities at all? What great defence tech will also come when it refuses stealth tech to the UK and Japan,its closest allies! We are deceiving ourselves and MP will in future rue the day he signed the agreement. It is going to be harder from now on to access the cutting edge high tech eqpt. that we've recd. from Russia.Russia can either deny us it -on the grounds of security with US access to Indian bases,or simply up the price. In fact,the Indian courting of the US has brought Russia and China closer.They're exercising together in the Asia-Pacific waters. Should the shit hit the fan,will US naval assets in Indian waters,etc.,be targeted by China or Russia?

[Kashi]

Should the shit hit the fan,will US naval assets in Indian waters,etc.,be targeted by China or Russia?

Along with much juicier targets within and in waters off Japan, SoKo, Phillipines and Guam?

[pankajs]

It also makes a mockery of our independent strategic posture and has immediately brought with it a binding at the hip of the Sino_Pak defence/strat relationship.In fact Pak and China are now using the agreement to up the ante in their ties making Pak in truth a Chinese province,extremely damaging for India.India now cannot object to Chinese troops being based in Pak henceforth and the full extent of the Chinese "occupation" of Pak is inevitable.We have been terribly myopic in this aspect. China can now go full steam ahead with its delivery of more nuclear and missile tech to Pak to encircle India both from Tibet and POK/Pak.

The above paragraph raises the following questions
1. Before Sino/Pak were not joined at the hip?
2. Before China had not upped the ante by supplying Nuclear tech. / Bomb design / Actual bombs and the associated delivery systems of ever increasing sophistication?
3. India's objection to Cheeni troops in POK is based on our legal right to that territory. How does the *logistic* support agreement nullify that? Such false equivalence could be expected from the Bakis and the Cheenis but from our own folks!
4. Poor Bakis, their "occupation" is dependent on a logistic agreement signed between India and the US. Where did I read that Bakis requesting the Cheenis to come and occupy them (Pushing CPEC) from the time of Musha-rat.

[NRao]

Should the shit hit the fan,will US naval assets in Indian waters,etc.,be targeted by China or Russia?

Like people need reasons to target.

[SSridhar]

That PC article is downright hypocritical, just like what MK Narayanan has written in The Hindu today.

I am no admirer of the US policies towards India though I do understand their realpolitik business. Nobody stopped us from playing a similar game but, by and large, we have been stuck on the 'high moral ground' theme (though a few times we might have been more pratical). PC seems to suggest that we remain stuck on that while the environment around us chages rapidly and to our detriment.

PC complains that the agreement has not been made public. Has GoI made public every agreement? Certainly, PC and others could raise the issue in Parliament and force the government to release it, table it or discuss it, if it is not already released by next session of Parliament. After all, it is only a few days since signature.

PC asks valid questions about who the real beneficiery of this agreement would be. These questions have been raised here by me and others too. Definitely, the biggest and possibly, the only, gainer is the US Navy. But, PC cannot take the high moral ground now after his UPA had negotiated the deal earlier. He knows all the nitty gritties and he cannot try to assume sainthood, now that the NDA has signed the deal. The deal was close to a consummation for a long time and it only needed a political will and/or more reciprocity. That the agreement would be signed was a foregone conclusion and enough hints were thrown in the UPA time as well. It is like how the INC blamed Atal Behari Vajpayee for the Shakti-II tests while every PM from Nehru onwards had kept the n-weapon issue simmering or even boiling at times. The bull was taken by the horn by Shri Vajpayee and when that happened, Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her coterie tried to play high politics having known all along that it was inevitable and the window was getting narrower.

On some issue such as 'billeting' etc, it is possible that we might have conceded something. He asks "will it not be the first time that India would have allowed foreign defence personnel to be stationed on Indian soil (maybe temporarily)?". Don't we have an agreement with Singapore for long-term basing of their Air Force & Army personnel here for training? No agreement is ever going to be 100% satisfactory to both the parties. One only hopes that something was got in return. If that has not happened, we have a serious problem. But, that's another matter.

Says he, "it is more than a handshake between the two countries, they have embraced each other! The world is watching, especially Russia, which has been our main supplier so far, and China." Why do we hesitate to acknowledge the fact that India and the US are developing a closer strategic relationship? How come that when the US & China came together and the US went out of its way to support it, it was all right, but not now? How come that the Chinese can transfer n-weapons, components, missiles, fraudulently grandfathered n-reactors, Pu separation plants, targetting data, diplomatic support to the hilt in international fora etc, with India watching helplessly all these developments but we should be scared if China 'watches' a logistics agreement between us and the US? Why are we afraid of playing realpolitik while simultaneously admiring the realpolitik of the US or China? Wasn't it the INC that moved away from our main supplier, Russia? Where was our strategic independence that PC so eloquently talks about when we were tied to the Russian apron string?

He goes on to claim that " . . . should not affect India’s strategic military neutrality or ability to pursue an independent foreign policy". Was it affected when we voted against Iran in the UN? Why did we withdraw from IPI pipeline project after smoking the peace-pipe? We didn't even have the LEMOA then. This is all rank opportunistic nonsense.

Let me be clear. I am very distrustful of the US, but completely understand their behaviour which is to protect their interests which alone matter to them. We have a necessity today for a deep relationship with them as Chin-Pak assumes dangerous proportions directly threatening us. We need support, we need technology and investments. The relationship with the US can never be anything more than transactional, a strategy well understood and honed by our brothers, the Pakistanis. Let us play realpolitik to the hilt. There is nothing immoral or shameful. Let us go to bed with the Americans and the Russians and if possible, the Chinese. This requires consummate skills, though.

[Cosmo_R]

High level fluff on "World Order" by a person who was sacked from his post by NDA-1, and morover does not understand economics.

India becoming an independant pole does not dependant on military alignments now but on how it does economically over the next 30 years.

Immediate priority is to deal with Pakistan & the rabid bully China whose true face is coming to the fore only now for Indians who are getting familiar with its belligerence and uncouth behavior / language.

+1

[Kashi]

Don't we have an agreement with Singapore for long-term basing of their Air Force & Army personnel here for training?

There's a world of difference between US and Singapore. It may be argued Singapore armed forces are largely defensive minded and their agreement with us is to avail necessary infrastructure for their excercises that are by and large defensive in nature. US forces on the other hand are stationed around the world largely for force projection and to protect US strategic interests.

Moreover, once can barely recall when Singapore personnel based in India have had run ins with the law. US personnel have a long history of such misdemeanours. Okinawans are sick and tired of them and wish they would GTFO.

No agreement is ever going to be 100% satisfactory to both the parties. One only hopes that something was got in return. If that has not happened, we have a serious problem. But, that's another matter.

And opacity does not help. GoI should come forth with what EXACTLY do we gain from this deal.

I am very distrustful of the US, but completely understand their behaviour which is to protect their interests which alone matter to them.

Yes and many-a-time their interests are directly inimical to our interests, in the past, in the present and are likely to remain so in the foreseeable future. Which is why we must be very very careful in dealing with them and beware the Unkil wearing gifts.

We call Pakis all sorts of names, but Unkil's behaviour towards India has been no less Paki-like on many occasions.

[SSridhar]

There's a world of difference between US and Singapore . . .

Of course, I know all that. But, PC's question was specific "If that happens, will it not be the first time that India would have allowed foreign defence personnel to be stationed on Indian soil (maybe temporarily)?". He didn't talk about intentions et al. The short answer is therefore, no, it won't be the first time. Besides, the LEMOA (at least from what has appeared in the Press) is clear that only port visits by the USN that involves joint exercises, training, HADR would be automatic and "Logistics support for any other cooperative efforts will only be provided on a case-by-case basis through prior mutual consent of both countries". The term 'cooperative' above clearly indicates that one-sided actions do not come under the purview of the agreement. The arrogant & lawless behaviour of US military personnel in many parts of the world are well known. This can happen even now when USN ships call at our ports without LEMOA. These are operational & administrative matters. We have seen how GoI had gone out of the way to let US embassy staff run illegal American Schools and indulge in various activities contravening the laws of our land with impunity for decades !

And opacity does not help. GoI should come forth with what EXACTLY do we gain from this deal.

IN gains practically zilch. GoI cannot state openly what we would gain otherwise. We all know why we are going ahead with this arrangement.

[Cosmo_R]

"SSridhar wrote:
No agreement is ever going to be 100% satisfactory to both the parties. One only hopes that something was got in return. If that has not happened, we have a serious problem. But, that's another matter."

I think we have to go beyond looking at the 'reciprocity' in LEMOA/BECA/CISMOA individually. These are the quid pro quo for the real apple: DTTI and the flow of technology, high-end product and MIC ecosystem in India. We should look at this holistically and have enough self confidence to know that unforeseen imbalances/ conflicts of interests that may arise, can be negotiated.

All of this started in GWB's term with Philip Zelikow (Google about making India a military power) and in some respects even before with Andrew Marshall in 2000 who wrote that India would be more important to US policy than Russia by 2020

http://www.the-american-interest.com/20 ... -marshall/

AM is the personification of the 'long view'. Who's our AM?

All through the 1980s I watched as India dithered and lost the economic race to China which at that time was poorer and less integrated globally. I don't want us left behind on the military front in the same way.

PC talks a good game about being distrustful of the US and capitulation etc. But where was this self esteem when he and others in the UPA's implored the US Amby in Delhi and the DoS to not give NaMo a visa? The commies in the LS even signed a 'Petition' to the DoS on this.

Think of it PETITION: "a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause."

Bah! A pox on their house.

[Kashi]

I think we have to go beyond looking at the 'reciprocity' in LEMOA/BECA/CISMOA individually. These are the quid pro quo for the real apple: DTTI and the flow of technology, high-end product and MIC ecosystem in India. We should look at this holistically and have enough self confidence to know that unforeseen imbalances/ conflicts of interests that may arise, can be negotiated.

That's fine. But words should be backed up by actions. I am hard pressed to recall what meaningful transfer of technology, if any, has taken place from US to India since 2000 when you claim that US started viewing India as eventually becoming more important than Russia by 2020.

[SSridhar]

I think we have to go beyond looking at the 'reciprocity' in LEMOA/BECA/CISMOA individually. These are the quid pro quo for the real apple: DTTI and the flow of technology, high-end product and MIC ecosystem in India. We should look at this holistically and have enough self confidence to know that unforeseen imbalances/ conflicts of interests that may arise, can be negotiated.

Exactly.

[RoyG]

"SSridhar wrote:
No agreement is ever going to be 100% satisfactory to both the parties. One only hopes that something was got in return. If that has not happened, we have a serious problem. But, that's another matter."

I think we have to go beyond looking at the 'reciprocity' in LEMOA/BECA/CISMOA individually. These are the quid pro quo for the real apple: DTTI and the flow of technology, high-end product and MIC ecosystem in India. We should look at this holistically and have enough self confidence to know that unforeseen imbalances/ conflicts of interests that may arise, can be negotiated.

All of this started in GWB's term with Philip Zelikow (Google about making India a military power) and in some respects even before with Andrew Marshall in 2000 who wrote that India would be more important to US policy than Russia by 2020

http://www.the-american-interest.com/20 ... -marshall/

AM is the personification of the 'long view'. Who's our AM?

All through the 1980s I watched as India dithered and lost the economic race to China which at that time was poorer and less integrated globally. I don't want us left behind on the military front in the same way.

PC talks a good game about being distrustful of the US and capitulation etc. But where was this self esteem when he and others in the UPA's implored the US Amby in Delhi and the DoS to not give NaMo a visa? The commies in the LS even signed a 'Petition' to the DoS on this.

Think of it PETITION: "a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause."

Bah! A pox on their house.

The US wont transfer high technology know how. Just high technology.

Why would they arm a future competitor? They don't want another China.

The US wants us to balance SCO and we want to balance ChiPak.

The only way we get tech know how is by fully being entangled in non-proliferation net like Japan and SoKo.

[RoyG]

"SSridhar wrote:
No agreement is ever going to be 100% satisfactory to both the parties. One only hopes that something was got in return. If that has not happened, we have a serious problem. But, that's another matter."

I think we have to go beyond looking at the 'reciprocity' in LEMOA/BECA/CISMOA individually. These are the quid pro quo for the real apple: DTTI and the flow of technology, high-end product and MIC ecosystem in India. We should look at this holistically and have enough self confidence to know that unforeseen imbalances/ conflicts of interests that may arise, can be negotiated.

All of this started in GWB's term with Philip Zelikow (Google about making India a military power) and in some respects even before with Andrew Marshall in 2000 who wrote that India would be more important to US policy than Russia by 2020

http://www.the-american-interest.com/20 ... -marshall/

AM is the personification of the 'long view'. Who's our AM?

All through the 1980s I watched as India dithered and lost the economic race to China which at that time was poorer and less integrated globally. I don't want us left behind on the military front in the same way.

PC talks a good game about being distrustful of the US and capitulation etc. But where was this self esteem when he and others in the UPA's implored the US Amby in Delhi and the DoS to not give NaMo a visa? The commies in the LS even signed a 'Petition' to the DoS on this.

Think of it PETITION: "a formal written request, typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority with respect to a particular cause."

Bah! A pox on their house.

The US wont transfer high technology know how. Just high technology.

Why would they arm a future competitor? They don't want another China.

The US wants us to balance SCO and we want to destroy Pakistan.

The only way we get tech know how is by fully being entangled in non-proliferation net like Japan and SoKo.

[NRao]

The only way we get tech know how is by fully being entangled in non-proliferation net like Japan and SoKo.

That is, perhaps, the only way to get it right-now.

However, India can, and indeed should, invest within the country. Not so much as invest by way of huge funds, but distributed, many universities. With a dedicated game plan. Can be done. Lot of Indian brain power is being wasted.

[RoyG]

^True. Higher education needs to be completely revamped. This is the only way we'll catch up.

[svinayak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jgD8K06H8I

Worried Pakistani Analyst Scratching their Heads How to Counter US India Defence Pact

Watch this video of how a third country is able to understand the India US agreement going to impact them in the future


This intense debate in Pak regarding the US India pact is unreal. There is something fishy

[Cosmo_R]

That's fine. But words should be backed up by actions. I am hard pressed to recall what meaningful transfer of technology, if any, has taken place from US to India since 2000 when you claim that US started viewing India as eventually becoming more important than Russia by 2020.

That is what the Foundational Agreements are for. They are the basis for the DTTI. Until they are signed, ToT is not possible. Let me remind you that 'getting ToT' and being able to leverage it are different things. For example, the OFB had complete ToT for the Bofors. What did they do with it? They even forgot to ask for the password/application to be able to display the data and had to pay SAAB to decipher the data.

Also, what exactly will the impact of the 'deep license' ToT for the MKIs be on the Indian MIC? Can we after umpteen years even upgrade it to a SU-35? It is not just "here are the docs" but an ecosystem that can absorb the tech.

Once of the big complaints the Pentagon voiced (publicly) from 2005 to now is "....we have asked the Indians what they want, but they have not told us what it is..." From 2005 to 2014, AKA refused to even be part of the strategic dialog withe US fearing commie and Muslim backlash in Kerala and in the UPA coalition.

When the MoD was finally able to articulate what it wanted (Predators/drones), it came up against MTCR restrictions which then had to be addressed first by membership (now done).

India wants product, tech and a supply chain. Only the US can provide this and it wants: Paris Treaty ratification (in exchange India wants NSG membership), LEMOA, BECA/CISMOA (legal requirement under US Law) and a closer military partnership (alongside OZ, and Japan) with us to check China.

As to Pakistan, by inviting India to a three-way with Afghanistan, the US has signaled that it will not heed the vetoes any longer.

Lots of games will be played but the good thing is both sides can play them.

Added later: Here is a good summary of what's in play.

https://jaideepprabhu.org/tag/basic-exc ... operation/