India-US News and Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby vsudhir » 25 Jun 2009 21:42



Aaah, at last....back to familiar territory. What we see is *not* uncharted waters or anything like it. Babudom remembers Robin Raphael and her ilk quite well, I would imagine. Getting anything like an irreversible concession out of India is no cakewalk, IMO. Can't fault hope and change for trying though.

Let Obamama shower maternal kindness on its Pak prodigy. A weaker Dilli's endured worse and well, endured without crumbling, thanQ.

Would be awesome if the F18 can be taken out of MRCA contention citing unkil chumminess with TSP at our expense and unkil meddling in cashmere. If wishes were horses that is. Right now they're horse manure.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3524
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Rudradev » 25 Jun 2009 21:51

You do see what's happening here, don't you?

June 12th: Undersecy. of State William Burns says US "wants to see Kashmir resolved in accordance with will of the Kashmiri people" (code for "will of the Islamists").
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090612/j ... 099075.jsp
Pakis and Hurriyat go into paroxysms of pleasure... India and BRF are angry.


June 20th: Obama himself "rules out any mediation by the US on Kashmir".
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20090620/8 ... or-on.html
India, BRF breathe a sigh of relief.


June 25th: NSA James Jones says the US will "do everything possible to help resolve the core issue of J&K" and "water issues between India and Pakistan".
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-t ... 702524.cms
Note he uses the term "core issue", which is shorthand for the Paki position of "give us Kashmir first or we won't talk about anything else". Also, bringing in water distribution issues which at least for the last decade, the international community had spurned any Pakistani attempts to invite outside mediation on.
Pakis go into paroxysms of pleasure, India and BRF are angry.

First one button is pushed, then 5-8 days later the other button, then the first one again.

Is this cluelessness on the Obama admins' part? Is it accident and/or diplomatic incompetence (Burns and Jones opening their mouths without thinking and the press hanging on their every word?) I don't think so, given that one of the statements came from Obama himself, and another from the NSA (Burns is a relatively piddly official but the other two act at the highest level).

Or is it a deliberate ping-pong game to keep both India and Pakis nervous and off balance, so that we will jump at shadows rather than negotiate with calm strength?

Or something else entirely?
Last edited by Rudradev on 25 Jun 2009 21:53, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 25 Jun 2009 21:52

Envoys, NSAs, .................. Sigh. Difficult being one. Where ever you go you get a kick, even from a Paki.

US envoy says Mumbai-style attacks must be stopped

The U.S. national security adviser said Thursday that attacks like last year's deadly siege in Mumbai must be prevented and vowed to help Pakistan and India improve their relations to combat the militant threat.

Gen. James Jones held talks in the Pakistani capital on Thursday with President Asif Ali Zardari and other top government and military officials on topics ranging from Afghanistan to Pakistan's domestic fight against the Taliban and Islamabad's relations with New Delhi.

"We want to make sure that to the extent that we can be helpful, we will helpful (to) both our friends in Pakistan and (in) India," Jones told television network Express 24/7 after the meetings. "We have to understand that the severity of the threats of extremism, of the possibility of another Mumbai style attack cannot be allowed to happen."


IF they are less severe it is OK.

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 25 Jun 2009 22:44

I think we should stop agonising over every word uttered by US, it is like we dont have any confidence in our abilities. We have to start acting like a Big Power by standing firm & asking US to buzz off, when they spew such nonsense with us.

Also, we should start putting the pressure on them by highlighting how their policies are stupid in the press e.g. funding Pakistan's military during Bush years, & now funding "non-military" activities & how that allows them to redirect their domestic resources to Military / Nuclear expansion.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16143
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby SwamyG » 26 Jun 2009 00:45

I had said this during Obama's campaign. Dems or Repubs don't matter. They look after their country's interest when it comes to foreign policy. Liberalism, conservatism, ithyadi comes later down the list. That is dharmic in a sense - they are looking after their country.
Now the important matter is are Indian politicians dharmic? Are they looking after the country's interest? Some might be incompetent looking only at short term gains and losing it in the long term. Are Indian leaders visionaries who can keep the long term goal/interests of the country in line of sight and then take opportunities here and there to get some short-term goals? Or are the leaders in the pockets of foreign countries? I think we have bumbling set of leaders - getting it right sometime and getting it wrong sometime. The very act of bumbling could indicate a lack of long term vision.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3985
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby KLNMurthy » 26 Jun 2009 01:45

SwamyG wrote:I had said this during Obama's campaign. Dems or Repubs don't matter. They look after their country's interest when it comes to foreign policy. Liberalism, conservatism, ithyadi comes later down the list. That is dharmic in a sense - they are looking after their country.
Now the important matter is are Indian politicians dharmic? Are they looking after the country's interest? Some might be incompetent looking only at short term gains and losing it in the long term. Are Indian leaders visionaries who can keep the long term goal/interests of the country in line of sight and then take opportunities here and there to get some short-term goals? Or are the leaders in the pockets of foreign countries? I think we have bumbling set of leaders - getting it right sometime and getting it wrong sometime. The very act of bumbling could indicate a lack of long term vision.

We can only speculate, no one will tell us, and no one actually asks them.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Jun 2009 01:51

The real thing is they take the money to do what they would have done anyway. And if someone gives it to them its all laddoos all the way.

bala
BRFite
Posts: 639
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby bala » 26 Jun 2009 03:20

The US is not giving up on TSP is very clear. They will use TSP as their private whore to be used and abused. No matter what TSP does, the US will be either cross or cuing sweet nothings into its ear. India should be firm and resolute to not buy into any of this nonsense and also not depend on the US to do anything earth-shattering in reigning in the mad bitch called TSP. They are made for each other.

India should reiterate the following items on its agenda that involve the Troika: US, TSP and India, add in China too. India should declare that there is nothing to chat about Kashmir or Water both are operating legally and within international norms. End of discussion, thank you. No more peace talks with TSP unless they kick butt their terrorists group. I know babus know the routine but it is the Indian politicians I worry about. SM Krishna the FM should be drilling these concepts into the media every now and then.

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

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby svinayak » 26 Jun 2009 04:53

Senator relents on delay of Tauscher nomination
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times
http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyrevie ... source=rss

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl relented late Wednesday afternoon and lifted the hold he had placed on the nomination of Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, as undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security.

In theory, Kyl, R-Ariz., could have held up her appointment indefinitely, but it is far more likely that he was using the procedure as leverage — a common practice — in the Republicans' disagreement with President Barack Obama over the nation's next generation nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, strongly support Tauscher for the State Department job and their top aides, with the help of State Department staffers, reportedly negotiated with Kyl to release the hold. The Senate breaks tonight for the July 4 recess and a number of nomination votes, including that of Tauscher, remain in the hopper.

Kyl's press secretary did not return phone calls so it unclear what persuaded the senator to change his mind.

Rumors have circulated for months that Kyl intended to target Tauscher, but details of the hold surfaced publicly online earlier this week on the Cable, a foreign policy news Web site owned by the Washington Post.

A congressional source told the Cable that Kyl objects to the administration's ongoing strategic arms reductions talks with Russia before the completion of the national Nuclear Posture Review.

In the undersecretary post, Tauscher would be heavily involved in the treaty and help develop and execute strategies identified in the Nuclear Posture Review.

Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is overseeing the Nuclear Posture Review, which will define U.S. nuclear deterrence policies for the next five to 10 years. The report is due in December.

The U.S.-Russia arms treaty also will expire in December, and the Obama administration has already started renewal talks.

"It's crucial that Tauscher be able to begin doing her job," said Leonor Tomero, director of nuclear nonproliferation policy for the Washington-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "Nuclear proliferation is the gravest threat to our national security right now."

The United States must secure a follow-up treaty with Russia before the expiration, Tomero said, or risk losing key physical verification provisions in the existing agreement that allow confirmation that weapons have been destroyed.

More than sufficient work has been completed on the Nuclear Posture Review to ensure that U.S. policy will mesh with a new treaty, she added.

Kyl, in an opinion piece circulated in May, however, argued that the United States cannot rely on treaties that "assume that if we reduce our strength, other nations would respond in kind."

"While the president is appealing to his leftist political base, our national security is jeopardized," he wroth. "Peace through strength is more than a slogan. It's critical to our survival as a nation."

paramu
BRFite
Posts: 669
Joined: 20 May 2008 11:38

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby paramu » 26 Jun 2009 06:21

SwamyG wrote:They might try that; but it is not going to be so easy for them to leverage. How much ever Caste, Sati, Cow & Poverty seem to be in the radar of the average Joes; India has not been vilified the same way as NoKo, Iran or others. People are upset about offsourcing (and quality) so there might be some animosity in certain quarters but the brand India has a better visibility in Joe and Jane's head.

If some campaign is launched sometime in the future, I wonder who would step up for India. I bet it is the people who first step up before the GoI does anything.

Currentlly they didn't try much because they have a malleable government in India. The moment India elects a leader who will stand up to them, say Modi, you should expect all kinds campaign.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23787
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 26 Jun 2009 08:24

US NSA James Jones' Interview
He said he would take a message of equality and fairness to India.


Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1496
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sumeet » 26 Jun 2009 09:50



From your article:

Farah, an alumni of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, has kept coming back to Kashmir over the years, her uncle said. She even did her postgraduation thesis on the Kashmir insurgency.


Her Linkedin profile states:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/farah-pandith/5/485/b45

Tufts University - The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
M.A.L.D. , (1) International Security Studies and (2) Islamic Civilizations and Southwest Asia , 1993 — 1995
M.A.L.D. Thesis:
Insurgency in Kashmir

I tried to google for the thesis but I had no luck. It will be important to be see this document.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1496
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sumeet » 26 Jun 2009 10:29

some more about Farah Pandith

Link

Although she was raised in Milton and Braintree, Pandith remains closely aligned with Kashmir, a region with 12 million residents sitting between the northern borders of India and Pakistan. She has more than 40 first cousins and hundreds of other relatives still living in Kashmir, some of whom she regularly telephones and messages by e-mail.


Don't know how reliable but still throwing it out there:
Link
In recent years, Pandith said, the long-running dispute has also become a Hindu-Muslim issue.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3046
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby vera_k » 26 Jun 2009 13:05

Found this when searching for Farah's thesis.

Making borders irrelevant

Also this library catalog has a list of traditional books and writing that concern India, Kashmir, US and Pakistan.

Tufts University Library

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23787
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 26 Jun 2009 13:21

Is 'Pandith' derived from 'Pandit' ?

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

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby RajeshA » 26 Jun 2009 14:02

Couldn't find US and the World Thread. Pardon going OT:

MICHAEL JACKSON is DEAD! RIP! Thanks for the dance steps! They were well used!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21803
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 26 Jun 2009 14:05

RajeshA wrote:Couldn't find US and the World Thread. Pardon going OT:

MICHAEL JACKSON is DEAD! RIP! Thanks for the dance steps! They were well used!


Deep gloom among Indian composers and music industry.

Many livelihoods depended on him for "inspiration" :)

arunsrinivasan
BRFite
Posts: 345
Joined: 16 May 2009 15:24

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby arunsrinivasan » 26 Jun 2009 15:13

It does look like many people in the US have started to understand what TSP really is see below.

Why Pakistan is Going Down the Tubes

At the root of the country's problems is a feudal political establishment primarily interested in promoting and preserving its own narrow class interests and unable or unwilling to seriously address the myriad threats the country faces. Unless and until this dynamic changes, Pakistan cannot he counted on to help the United States in its struggle against the Taliban or even to stop the spread of radical Islam within its own borders. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the nature of Pakistani political culture, nor in the performance of the Pakistani political class since the founding of the state, that provides any grounds for optimism.

The highly contentious and sometimes violent nature of Pakistani politics does not reflect deep-seated differences of approach on policy issues, but rather a struggle between competing networks for the right to control state resources. . . . Although often regarded as a class apart, the Army functions in many ways like just another political party, keen to preserve its on prerogatives.

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 26 Jun 2009 20:27

SSridhar wrote:Is 'Pandith' derived from 'Pandit' ?

I would think so, Heard of her before (USAID and I think she was in some capacity was working for white house in Clinton's time) - from what I heard (too lazy to check it) good student (Smith college - same as Barbara Bush), little liberal but not backward (would be surprised if she will wear a hijab aka Hillary Clinton just to appease faithfuls) - Educated parents - mother a physician, family, I think, from Kasmir- Sunni Muslim - but according to Washington post State dept spokes person Kelly who made the announcement said he "could not say whether Pandith was a Muslim"

From:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/125415.htm
QUESTION: Could you put something out in the meantime about her appointment and --
MR. KELLY: Sure. Yeah, absolutely.
QUESTION: Just out of curiosity, is she a Muslim?
MR. KELLY: You know, I can’t answer that question.
QUESTION: You’re friends and you don’t know?
MR. KELLY: Sorry?
QUESTION: You’re friends and you don’t know? (Laughter.)
MR. KELLY: I haven’t asked her her religious affiliation.
Yes, Dave. I’m sorry. You have a follow-up?
Last edited by Amber G. on 26 Jun 2009 20:51, edited 1 time in total.

AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby AnimeshP » 26 Jun 2009 20:30

Amber G. wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Is 'Pandith' derived from 'Pandit' ?

I would think so, Heard of her before (USAID and I think she was in some capacity was working for white house in Clinton's time) - from what I heard (too lazy to check it) good student (Smith college - same as Barbara Bush), little liberal but not backward (would be surprised if she will wear a hijab aka Hillary Clinton just to appease faithfuls) - Educated parents - mother a physician, family, I think, from Kasmir- Sunni Muslim - but according to Washington post State dept spokes person Kelly who made the announcement said he "could not say whether Pandith was a Muslim"


From Wikipedia:
Farah Pandith is a Muslim American who immigrated from India as a baby[1][2]. She is currently Senior Advisor of the US State Department. She has been named US special representative to Muslim communities on June 2009[3][4].


link

Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6985
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Amber G. » 26 Jun 2009 20:59

g.kacha What I was trying to note was that she (my impression from past stories) does not wear her religion on her sleeve.

AnimeshP
BRFite
Posts: 514
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 07:39

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby AnimeshP » 26 Jun 2009 21:02

Amber G. wrote:g.kacha What I was trying to note was that she (my impression from past stories) does not wear her religion on her sleeve.


Amber G ... from whatever little I have read on the net about her, I would agree with you. Let's see how this goes ...

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3046
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby vera_k » 26 Jun 2009 21:52

There's a bio of her here.

Troubled homeland led Kashmiri to career in conflict resolution


By Judith Forman, Globe Staff Correspondent, 10/6/2002

ANTON - Farah Pandith is a long way from the violence of her native Kashmir, but it is never far from her thoughts. In April 1993, one of her cousins was assassinated by a Kashmiri military group for trying to unify political factions. Another cousin was shot and killed by Indian troops during the funeral procession.


Five months later, Pandith began her studies at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Her relatives' deaths spurred her to focus on international security and conflict resolution. She wrote her thesis on the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and in 1994 secured grants to visit her war-ravaged homeland.

Pandith, 34, who lives in Canton with her mother and brother, has visited Kashmir at least 20 times in an effort to help find a way to end the conflict. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, tensions have risen even higher in Kashmir, and Pandith has often been asked to speak at schools about the situation.

Although she was raised in Milton and Braintree, Pandith remains closely aligned with Kashmir, a region with 12 million residents sitting between the northern borders of India and Pakistan. She has more than 40 first cousins and hundreds of other relatives still living in Kashmir, some of whom she regularly telephones and messages by e-mail.

Control of Kashmir is at the center of a dispute between India and Pakistan that is more than a half-century old. In 1947, India and Pakistan gained independence from Britain. Kashmir was allowed to accede to either country. Both India and Pakistan wanted Kashmir because of its strategic location, situated between China, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union, and rival historical ties. The leader of Kashmir decided to align with India, though the people of Kashmir were told they would be allowed an election to decide if they should join either country. The election has not been held.

In recent years, Pandith said, the long-running dispute has also become a Hindu-Muslim issue. And in 1998, when both countries conducted nuclear tests, fears of an escalated confrontation over the disputed territory began to grow.

Pandith arrived in the United States as a toddler on July 4, 1969. She came with her mother, Dr. Mehbooba Anwar (who has retired as medical director of Massachusetts Respiratory Hospital in Braintree), and her brother, Adeel Pandith, 28. Her father arrived in 1970 and Pandith's parents divorced when she was 10.

Pandith attended Milton Academy, where as co-class president she sharpened her leadership skills.

''For Farah, leadership and service have never been a matter of trying to gain prestige or ego,'' said John Marshall, now a lawyer in Tampa, who attended Milton Academy with her from 1982 to 1986. ''Farah always has been in touch with everybody, top to bottom. She has such a kind and generous heart.''

Racial tensions escalated during Pandith's time at Smith College in the late 1980s. As student government president, she addressed her school and the news cameras that crowded Northampton.

In the fall of 1989, Pandith opened the school year with a speech on diversity and tolerance. Barbara Bush, who was at Smith to receive an honor, spent a day with Pandith, and the next day her aides asked for a copy of the speech. Later that year, the wife of then President George Bush invited Pandith to the White House. The first lady (who to this day reportedly still borrows parts of that speech) was instrumental in Pandith's decision to work at the US Agency for International Development in Washington after graduation.

Pandith said her diplomatic skills seep into every aspect of her life. As vice president of international business for Boston-based ML Strategies LLC (an affiliate of the law firm Mintz Levin), she consults with clients that have problems in Ireland, Mexico, and Canada.

As a volunteer member of the World Affairs Council of Boston, she travels the world and organizes speakers in Boston.

Even at work or on the street, Pandith said, she often schools people on what it means to be a Muslim (she and her family are Sunnis). She also writes children's stories set in Kashmir.

''I like to make people understand each other,'' she said. ''I know it's so important to `get it' from an immigrant's perspective ... It's all about education.''

Pandith's mother describes her daughter as a ''born leader.''

''She has a followed a theme that she wants to make a difference,'' Anwar said. ''From very early on you could see she was a take-charge person.''

Judith Forman can be contacted at mailto:%20jforman@globe.com.


This story ran on page 1 of the Globe South section on 10/6/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.



ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54165
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 26 Jun 2009 22:06

Interesting that she does not have an Indian identity even though that is the part she came from.

anuj
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 13 Nov 2008 00:50
Location: Third World Country

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby anuj » 27 Jun 2009 00:01

hmm... a hindu father and a muslim mother. parents divorced, proclaimed muslim and now living with her mother.

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1496
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sumeet » 27 Jun 2009 00:47

where did you read about hindu father ?

anuj
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 13 Nov 2008 00:50
Location: Third World Country

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby anuj » 27 Jun 2009 01:00

Sumeet wrote:where did you read about hindu father ?

just an IMO. the fathers probably some kashmiri hindu. the parents separate and the kids take on the hindu name.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21122
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Prem » 27 Jun 2009 01:01

'India may announce 2 nuke sites during Clinton trip'
Washington, June 26: India is likely to announce locations for two nuclear power plants, which would be made available to the American companies, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to New Delhi next month, a top Obama Administration has said.

Clinton, who is recovering from surgery of her right elbow, is scheduled to visit India next month, which officials of the Obama Administration say would be the launching pad to take the Indo-US relationship to a new level in the next few years. Dates of her visit have not been announced yet.

"We hope, at that time, that the Indians will be in a position to announce where nuclear parks -- we hope to have two sites that would be announced, where American companies can go in and provide new reactors, which would be a major source of new business opportunities for American companies," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake said y
http://www.zeenews.com/news542221.html

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 27 Jun 2009 05:46

Obama Appoints Kashmiri Muslim as US Envoy to Muslim World

This looks ready to set a cat among the pigeons, imho.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby vsudhir » 27 Jun 2009 07:43

Prem wrote:'India may announce 2 nuke sites during Clinton trip'


Yup.
And both announced sites should be in POK and Northern Areas respectively. Its Indian territory after all, whether khan unkil likes it or not. No?

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3080
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Rony » 27 Jun 2009 20:57

Prem wrote:'India may announce 2 nuke sites during Clinton trip'
http://www.zeenews.com/news542221.html


Does that mean the yanks will get the reactors and not the mmca deal ? Or will they get both ? If its the latter, its a clear evidence that manmohan singh-montek singh coterie has already made up their minds to make India , another "Japan" .

krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 432
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby krithivas » 27 Jun 2009 21:11

There are a number of high profile/visibility positions that have been filled up by Indian-Americans. The Kumar of "Harold and Kumar" was appointed as the special representative to immigrants (or something like that). Then we have the CTO ......

Sometime BR should also psy-op ourselves - The situation has played out, and let us make the best advantage of that. At the end of the day Ms. Pandith is an Indian American, and for her to be appointed as a special representative to the muslim world is a great achievement for her and for India. You could have appointed a Saudi or an Egyptian or a Moroccan or an Indonesian ... but it was an Indian that got the job.

This is a pigeon is amidst the Arab world cats ..... :)

Sanjay M wrote:Obama Appoints Kashmiri Muslim as US Envoy to Muslim World

This looks ready to set a cat among the pigeons, imho.

shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby shravan » 27 Jun 2009 21:46

Old Article. MUST READ.
---------
"Towards a new cold war China - USA".
23/03/2001
http://www.strategicsinternational.com/3engfouchet.htm
By Gérald Fouchet. Gérald Fouchet is a political analyst, a writer and a journalist.


Increasing geostrategic rivalry between the United States and China for the ownership of the Pacific establishes a line of very worrisome world fracture and anticipates from a "new cold war" more dangerous than the first.

China rearms. Why ?

Facts, at first, merciless : the People's Republic of China is the country in the world which increases its military budget in the most considerable proportions : on March 6, Peking announced an increase of military spending of 17,7 % in 2001, what brings them to 141 billion yuans, either 19 billion euro or 120 billion francs. The Occidental experts estimate that the real military expenditures are "two in three times as high that figures officially admitted" ("Le Monde", 07/03/2001). This rough progress is strongly observed for twenty years, and it constitutes the thirteenth consecutive increase, which exceeds 10 %. Contrary to Europe which disarms and cuts down on the military budgets, China makes so an effort of rearmament and massive military increase of its power, superior to what Germany made between 1933 and 1940 and to the military budget of the USA after Pearl-Harbor.

Why ?

For a long time, one knows that a country that rearms obeys two hypotheses : either it feels threatened and wants to protect itself, or it wants to attack. Whom China does it want to attack ? Taiwan, to re-conquer it ? No, because it would not need to rearm so strongly to re-conquer the island ; and the strategy is the one of the "persuasion" : China wants to get back Taiwan gently ; a war would ruin juicy economy of the lost province of which is needed by China. It envisages Taiwan, as an intended "autonomous region", just like Hong-Kong according to the famous proverb "a single country, two economic systems". General Régis de Marsan, suggested (in "le Soir" 28/02/2001) "that it is necessary to put in parallel the Chinese military budget with the depopulation of Russia". Would it be so Russia that China wants to attack ? One knows that China could claim a part of the Eastern Siberia, where infiltrate her migrants. One remembers Chinese, Russian fights on the Amour of the 60s. There is not nevertheless geopolitical Chinese preoccupation ; the Empire of the middle does not feel at all threatened by Russia more than by India (especially since the Russians always supply her with weapons, notably the hunters, bombers Sukhoï). China has interest to maintain good relations with these two continental powers. For which reasons then does China rearm ? Because the Chinese have a presentiment of the possibility of a major conflict, in the 21-th century, with the big thalassocratic superpower : the United States. China, a nation (as France) at the same moment maritime and continental understood that the Pacific, at present under American control, was going to become a major place of friction. Let us not forget also that two military superpowers from 2015 will be the United States and China. This last one foresees a situation similar to that of "cold war" Western block-USSR of the years 1947-1991. And, within the framework of this rearmament, it is necessary to know that China does not increase at all its actual ground (what would be the case in the hypothesis of continental inhabitants conflict of the border zone) but, as accidentally ; 1) China develops the strength its open sea fleet and submarine - Peking plans the launching of aircraft carrier - and its aviation ; 2) she improves the ballistic and nuclear capacities, preparing also military spy satellites ; 3) she revalues all the pays, to motivate the army. The Chinese get well ready for a conflict of "postmodern" type, centered on the electronic war, the missiles, the planes, the submarines and the satellites, a conflict which would have inevitably a nuclear aspect. The Pentagon perfectly realized it.

The true reasons of the American anti-missiles shield (NMD).

In defiance of the agreements of nuclear disarmament SALT - and in formal discord with China, Russia and France - M.G.W. Bush wants to endow his country of interceptors shield anti-missiles (NMD) capable of shooting down in flight possible nuclear warheads launched against the American territory (1). He breaks there "balance of terror", which avoided any atomic war due to the "mutual assured destruction" (MAD, mutual assured destruction) ; this last relaying on an implicit pact between nuclear powers, according to which the aggressor, by being certain to be struck by an atomic riposte, is dissuaded from launching his A-bombs or H. But, if a country, in this particular case the USA, possesses a shield anti-missiles, it can allow himself any war type against a nuclear power without being afraid of serious retort.

The commentators of world press assert that the Americans want to protect themselves against possible atomic ballistic striking "from rogue States", that is North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. The press relations departments of the White House confirm obviously this version. Nevertheless, it is little credible. The above-mentioned countries are not mad or with suicidal tendencies. They know that they are not world major powers. In the hypothesis (highly improbable) where they could endow of nuclear missiles with long reach capable of reaching the USA, they would not take the stupid risk of an aggression that would provoke on their ground a devastating retort. Really, everything indicates that the Pentagon envisages a major confrontation with China in twenty years, and wants to give itself the means to knock (not necessarily with nuclear annihilation moreover) without risk of nuclear counter-offensive on the American territory. In brief, the thesis, which we propose, is the following one : the NMD, the shield anti-missiles American, is probably intended to protect the USA of an atomic Chinese threat. The logic of the nuclear deterrence is similar at the same moment to the game of chess, and also, to the game of go : the American leaders know very well (and we shall there speak in a more low voice) that China, considering the 1,25 billion inhabitants, is afraid much less than them of nuclear striking. The protection is its demography. This American project of defense anti-ballistic missiles (NMD) defended by the administration Bush, is considered in China as an aggressive measure, almost a casus belli. Traditionally, contrary to the Occidentals, the Chinese use a very diplomatic language and mask any hostility of language. When this last one appears, it is that the things are serious. Sha Zukang, the Chinese negotiator on the disarmament, could declare: "The United States will have a position at the same moment defensive and offensive. I do not believe that the other nuclear powers would tolerate a superiority and a security absolved by Americans, while they would feel in a situation of absolute insecurity". He said it again in these terms during a press conference in Canada : "I hate the NMD, produced by an American mentality of cold war, people who look themselves for new enemies, China maybe...". And then, he had this sentence, very calculated, but heavy of threats : "China is too big so that the Americans send it on the Moon. The Chinese are on the earth for 5 000 years and will stay there forever". Finally, sign also disturbing, the influent Teng Jianqun, chief editor of the official World Military Review wrote at once, always about the NMD, the American spatial shield anti-nuclear missiles, that this last one was in fact intended to prepare a war against China ; he noted : "when a country prepares a confrontation with China in the space, we have to pay to it serious attention".

Let us not forget a central fact that the American thalassocracy, in spite of the ultra-pacifist official speech and humanitarian, is an "imperial nation" based on war and military function. The USA need war ("just war", crusade against the miserable, obviously), not only for economic reasons - the industry of armament is a technical-industrial and financial locomotive - but to maintain their "defenders - rulers" world status of the world. Since 1941, the USA is the country in the world, which led the biggest number of military operations and bombardments outside its borders. However, without being ever afraid for the integrity of the territory. There, things change : they have not to deal any more with small countries, Vietnam, Panama, Serbia, etc. However, with enormous China, terrifying challenger, which, with the 1,25 billion inhabitants, can support heavy losses of nuclear striking, and which endows at present time, missiles of long reach ! Perspective is much worse than in front of the deceased the USSR. Breaking radically with the politics of Clinton, the President Bush junior declared, at the beginning of March, what press little raised, but who is nevertheless major : "China is a rival and not a strategic partner". A war will have maybe for theater and central stake the Pacific and will set possibly the USA and China, by 2010. Which will be the excuse of it, on which disputes will it burst ? At the moment, nobody knows it. But, contrary to nearsighted and improvident European politicians who "have no more enemies", who do not feel more threatened by nobody, who disarm, for whom military function is only a force of police for humanitarian interposition, the American strategists read Clausewitz ; they argue in the long run and know that war is always possible, tomorrow, between two major powers even though, today, one does not know the exact excuses of it. It said, the global stake in such confrontation, we guess it easily : it is the dominion of Pacific Ocean.

Analyze forms of a rising conflict.

Therefore, a major conflict for the ascendancy between China and the United States is likely, but not certain, for 21-th century. In any cases, a constant rivalry during 21-th century is absolutely evident. It will take either the forms of opened conflicts, or a permanent tension, with always the risk of nuclear striking. All the question is to know which camp will choose the European Union, Russia, India and the Moslem States. Anyway, a new cold war begins. China appears as the appearance in the history of a future hyper-power such as the humanity has ever seen yet. Regretted Alain Peyrefitte in his book "When China will wake up" had predicted it : China will be in the 21-th century a 1/5-th representing unified State of the humanity. Never a similar case had occurred.

What are relations between Peking and the new republican administration and why do they degrade ? Much more than of the time of Clinton, the circle of acquaintances of Bush dreads the ascent in military power of the Empire of middle. Quian Qichen, Vice Prime Minister, diplomatic councilor of the Head of State and the Chinese CP, went to the White House on March 22. China not being any more, according to the statements of Mr. Bush, a "strategic partner" but a "strategic competitor", Peking tries to defuse American distrust, according to the technique of the game of go : to put to sleep then to suffocate the opponent rather than to provoke it ; traditional practice in China since the Emperors Ming, where according to Lao-Tseu's rule, resumed by Mao, it is always necessary "to smile to his most dangerous enemy and to show teeth to smaller enemy". China tries therefore to calm the fears of the big American rival, but is not ashamed to cover Taiwan of invectives. Nevertheless, an internal document in the Chinese CP of March, 2001, posterior to the election of Mr. Bush, reveals that the geostrategic purpose of China is "to counter the development of the hegemonies and the law of the strongest". What means this sibylline formula ? The Chinese have time, they calculate always in the long run. Their objective is, at first, not only to get back Taiwan, the rebel island, for reasons as economic as political, but also, in a second time, to distend defender links between the USA and their two main Asiatic allies : South Korea and Japan. In a third time, China attends resuming the mastery of peaceful, commercial and military - including on Australia where it encourages a Chinese immigration - by trying hard, notably to close American bases as the one from Okinawa. China gives itself about twenty years to reach this objective. Now this last one is as unacceptable for the USA as a geostrategic alliance, outside the NATO, between peninsular Europe and Russia ("Euro-Siberia "). The double nightmare of the Pentagon, it is that the American thalassocracy sees itself eliminated from the Pacific by China, and from the Euro-Russian continent by an ascent in power of Russia, allied to an European Union breaking with the NATO. However, nothing will be able to divert China of its aim on the Pacific where it wants to substitute itself from the American defender. China knows that economically and geo-strategically the Pacific - all around on which will live in 2020 the two thirds of the humanity - will be in the 21-th century what were the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean for the other centuries. China would obviously prefer to obtain the hegemony, which would dedicate it as superpower without conflict with the USA. However, a conflict does not frighten the Empire of middle.

New American position is the following one : if China, ambitions of that seem disproportionate, breaks the pax Americana in the Pacific, it will be a casus belli. Administration Bush understands that China stays an "intermediate power", as India or Japan. Now, the Americans began to pass in the offensive : one remembers the "accidental" bombardment of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which was intended to test the level of riposte of Peking, according to the Italian secret services. More recently, they accuse China for helping technologically it "Rogue State" that constitutes Iraq, what is probably a lawful charge. They intend to sell to Taiwan frigates anti-missiles provided with radar Aegis system, (following the sale by France of frigates La Fayette), as well as missiles (to counter the recent rockets M9 and M11 pointed by China on its Southern coast), which would make difficult an attack against the island ; they block the membership of China in the World trade organization, for fear of being submerged by the subsidized Chinese farm produces. And, in end of March, 2001, the United States decided to sponsor a resolution in front of the commission of human rights from the UNO, which sat in Geneva for "to condemn serious violations of human rights in China".

Another litigious, rather explosive matter, deserves to be mentioned : the major question of the reunification of two Koreas, inevitable at long-term, because of disaster provoked by Pyongyang's regime. At the moment, Peking supports to the end Kim Jong Il's regime. The objective is the creation of Korea reunited under the Chinese crook, with a system "authoritarian capitalist" as in Hong-Kong. American objective is apparently close, but inverse : the creation of unique Korea, the consequent economic and military power, under American hegemony. The purpose of the USA is clear : to intimidate China and to contain it by three "guns" and competitors aimed against it, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Peking, toward these States tries to play the argument of the "ethnic solidarity" of the Asiatic against Occidentals.

One other friction is Vietnam. Washington lost the first game, because, due to the Chinese help to North Vietnam imposed on the Uncle Sam the first military defeat of its history. But the USA want to take their revenge, a "peaceful" revenge, but which arouses the exasperation of the Chinese CP : to help Vietnam to "de-communized", to make a capitalist country of it which returns in the American lap. Economic incompetence and financial necessities of the regime of Hanoi go to the direction of the American strategy, especially since the Vietnamese are historically very suspicious toward the Chinese, with whom they knew sporadic military confrontations (victorious for the Vietnamese) on the north border, after the reunification.

Towards a Chinese capitalist national capitalism.

The main thing is to understand that, in all the history of the humanity, the cause of conflicts and wars was never mainly ideological, but nationalist. Cold war between the West and the communism has never degenerated into warm war, because at the bottom, conflict was at first ideological, between the communism and the capitalism. On the other hand, Second world war began, one forget it too often, not by a fight between the German National Socialism, the Italian fascism, the Occidental democracies and the communism, but on a nationalist and geopolitical rivalry of the European countries : Germany, Russia, France, United Kingdom, etc. Ideology intervenes only as excuse, as "by-product" would have said the sociologist Pareto. Also today, what is very disturbing in the rising rivalry between China and the USA, it is that it is not any more about an ideological conflict between the Chinese communism and the American, logical capitalism totally exceeded, but by the return in a classic geopolitical rivalry of powers. China does not look any more at all, as of the time of Mao, to defend communist messianism, to export its model in Far East, or to take the head of a crusade of the poor countries against the Occidental capitalism. China exchanged communism for the nationalism. The objective, very cunning, is double 1) To preserve an authoritarian regime with unique party, militarist, with the aim of becoming first world power by 2020. 2) For more efficiency, the Chinese CP decided, under Jiang Zemin's presidency, to pass gradually in a capitalist economy (in two speeds, note), what worries the Pentagon, because the USA eventually understood that an opponent within market economy was more successful and dangerous than an opponent for the communism to be paralyzed. At this level, the Americans are taken in the net of a painful dilemma : in atavistic storekeepers, they can not make otherwise that to invest in the Chinese market, which is called to become colossal (the USA are the first foreign investor) but, by this making, they strengthen regime and contribute to modernize the giant, to increase the wealth (and therefore the techno-military capacities) and to make a dreadful commercial competitor, capable of pulling Japan in its orbit.

One of the American trump cards is that Peking is at the moment badly seen by its Asiatic neighbors ; they prefer by far an American hegemony to a Chinese hegemony, which would be much rougher. That is why, the Chinese CP does not stop multiplying statements of good intentions to all the countries of the region, beginning with Japan, to which is opening the doors to investments in South China.

The worsening of Chinese - American relations.

The most crucial and the most dangerous dispute concerns the Chinese capacity to endow nuclear missiles of long reach. China proceeded, since 1990, to a constant increase of its spatial performances from rockets "Long March" (inspired by the soviet technology), capable of putting into orbit several tons. It means simply that China tests also there, its intercontinental vectors ICBM, simple or "mirvés" (2), capable of affecting the USA. The military ballistic technique appeals, indeed, to the same resources and the knowledge as the programs of orbiting.
Chinese - American relations still deteriorated in March 23, 2001 by the desertion in the USA of a superior officer, a colonel of the popular Army of liberation ( APL). Worse still : his wife found refuge in the USA by the intervention of the American embassy in Peking, what the Chinese consider as a humiliation and a "serious incident". And as for Qian Qichen's visit, Chinese Vice Prime Minister, in the White House, on March 22, what we evoked higher, it was a considerable failure because the Chinese did not obtain American renunciation of the sale to Taiwan of a shield anti-missiles Aegis (3). This point was nevertheless crucial for Peking. Mr. Bush and his State Secretary, the "falcon" Colin Powel, big artisan of the War of the Bay, attend applying literally the Treaty of Taiwan's protection signed in 1979 (4), while Mr. Clinton was ready to negotiate a possible reunification gently, according to a "process in Hong-Kong".

Another serious dispute between Peking and Washington, little known by the public and little evoked by the European press, concerns the suspension by the CP of freedom of religion, and notably the discreet suppression of Christianity. In September, 2000, a campaign of destruction of churches by dynamiting would have begun. Several thousand buildings were destroyed, claim the Americans ; what deny obviously the Chinese leaders. It is one of the reasons for which administration Bush has just accused China in front of the committee of the human rights of UNO, gathered in Geneva (for seeing higher). For the Chinese leaders, this American instigation on "human rights" in their own country, this constant criticism of the "dictatorial" and "repressive" character of their regime establishes, according to the usual term, the "unbearable intervention", the humiliation, which reminds the semi-colonial time of the "uneven treaties" and the "territorial concessions" of the beginning of 20-th century. The Chinese were extremely hurt by the following statement of Mr. Bush (during the visit, quoted in this article, during Mr. Qian) : "Our guests will not be surprised if I say that I believe in the freedom of religion and that it would be doubtless much easier to forge ahead in a constructive way in our relations if our interlocutors honored freedoms of religion inside their borders" (5). For the Chinese, it is a question there, not only intervention, but also moral imperialism. Do they require that, the United States and the West, apply the Chinese cultural rules ? Let us underline there, moreover, a fundamental philosophic and ideological difference between China and West - more particularly the USA. One knows that, in the history, philosophic breaks between civilizations, the "breaks of vision of the world", according to the statement of the political analyst Julien Freund feed hostilities, and instigate geostrategic conflicts. This difference does not concern at all the choice of a social economic system (of the type communism against capitalism), what the Chinese, in pragmatic checks, laugh at. It concerns the universalistic ethics of human rights and democracy to the Occidental that the Chinese leaders take absolutely as issue. In followers of Confucius and Lao-Tseu, much more than Marx, the Chinese laud relativism and not universals. For them, the notion of democracy and the philosophy of human rights are not applicable only to the West, not in the other areas cultural identity. Furthermore, they dispute the aptness of these notions, deducing that the United States themselves - donors of lessons - do not respect their own hypocritical principles, for example by bombarding Serbia or the embassy of China in Belgrade.

In conclusion.

Let us not forget that China and the United States had been already in military confrontation in 1951, during the war of Korea, and indirectly, during the war of Vietnam. One will notice that never the United States and the former USSR had directly been in confrontation.
The two main lines of fracture and risks of conflicts of 21-th century will concern a confrontation Islam-Europe and Islam-India on one hand, and China - USA on the other hand (Islam West China the USA).

As demonstrated it by Alexandre Del Valle in two of the recent works, and in some of goods articles of American foreign policy aims to neutralize the European and Russian rivals by playing the card of the Islam, as the war of Serbia demonstrated by it. However, the USA has a more serious preoccupation on their western side : to neutralize China. They feel as a thalassocratic island surrounded, obliged to control the Big threatening Continent. There is a constant in the history of wars, which obeys to a strange paradox, which geopolitical appoints "the paradox of the Trojan War". It can formulate as : opened wars burst between two powers or two coalitions on particular and unpredictable excuses, which are never fundamental because ; these last ones are a global, strategic, economic, ethnic rivalry, etc. which looks only for a spark, at the bottom secondary, to degenerate into opened conflict. First-rate Trojan War immortalized by Homer, set in fact the young cities Greek-achenian against the city, State of Troy, installed near Bosphorus, and commercially formidable and military rival. The pointless excuse of the release of hostilities and expedition of Agamemnon was a loving jealousy (the removal of beautiful Hélène by Trojans). However, the real cause of the conflict was the geostrategic will of the Greeks to eliminate their oriental competitors and to appropriate the Aegean Sea.

Many wars can analyze according to this railing, which distinguishes the excuses of essential causes, backcloths. Now, in the case of the potential conflict China - USA, we can track down a structural backcloth extremely loaded in hostility : rivalry for the hegemony on the Pacific ; fear that the USA, become unique superpower, to see re-appearing a competitor otherwise more dangerous than the deceased USSR, because much more populated, and because at the same moment continental and maritime power, what is not Russia ; America been also afraid of the world economic and technological competition of the Empire of Middle and its tremendous demographic mass ; flourish of Chinese nationalism which becomes aware of its immense power and which has a debt to be adjusted, a revenge to be set against the West which would have humbled it since the beginning of 20-th century with the "uneven treaties", etc.

In brief, the conflicting "backcloth" is particularly dangerous. The dispute China - USA is much heavier than former contentious the USA - USSR, because it is geostrategic and either ideological, and also because it is similar, as being showed by Samuel Huntington, in a shock of civilizations.

That is why, as the French-German wars of 19-th and 20-th centuries, which could burst under any excuse, one can not say that "Taiwan's problem" will be inevitably cause of a confrontation. Quite other excuse can appear. The future is always opened, everything is possible. As for 2020, Chinese - American rivalry will make only increase, as a powder keg, which does not stop filling. Nevertheless, we do not know the name of the lock, which will blow up it. To summarize this analysis, we shall say that a global confrontation between North America and China constitutes one of major risks in the 21-th century, without we can know the excuse of its explosion, or the shape, which it will take. Anyway, a philosophic spirit could notice that we are going to assist during 21-th century in the confrontation of the most ancient civilization of the world (China), an alive and homogeneous long-alive people, according to the statement of Raymond Ruyer, and of the most recent (America), which is moreover more a society than a historic civilization, a diverse and short-alive people.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16143
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby SwamyG » 27 Jun 2009 23:39

krithivas: You would have had a point if she was portrayed as an Indian-Muslim. Repeatedly we are seeing a reference to her 'Kashimiri' origin. Look even Indian Express has this in their headlines: Kashmir born Pandith appointed US envoy to Muslim world. Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams were fore most called Indian-American. Even 'Harold' Kumar. The Indian newspapers talked about their ethnicity or state of origin only as a sidebar.

Manny
BRFite
Posts: 846
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Manny » 28 Jun 2009 00:28

Anyone know how I can send this Graphic video to her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McxxS98E ... annel_page

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21803
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby chetak » 28 Jun 2009 00:59

anuj wrote:hmm... a hindu father and a muslim mother. parents divorced, proclaimed muslim and now living with her mother.



All parents from ROP onlee

Her father, Mohammad Anwar Pandith, is a businessman originally from Sopore, Her mother Mehbooba, from Srinagar, is a chest specialist.

Family denying Indian origin and claiming kashmiri onlee.

We are in for some interesting times!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 Jun 2009 03:39

SwamyG wrote:krithivas: You would have had a point if she was portrayed as an Indian-Muslim. Repeatedly we are seeing a reference to her 'Kashimiri' origin. Look even Indian Express has this in their headlines: Kashmir born Pandith appointed US envoy to Muslim world. Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams were fore most called Indian-American. Even 'Harold' Kumar. The Indian newspapers talked about their ethnicity or state of origin only as a sidebar.



I am fairly confident that IF she calls herself of Indian origins she will not be able to get a foot in into the "Muslim World" - TSPA thru PM will be the first to protest.

On the side this could be a move by Obama to either keep Pakistan "happy" or to put more pressure on India. ??????????

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 28 Jun 2009 05:27

Brzezinski Strongly Favors 'G2' Sino-US Alliance

A leading proponent of the G2 is former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advised President Barack Obama during his campaign.

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

Re: India-US News and Discussion

Postby RajeshA » 28 Jun 2009 05:38

Sanjay M wrote:Brzezinski Strongly Favors 'G2' Sino-US Alliance
A leading proponent of the G2 is former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advised President Barack Obama during his campaign.

That has to do with the pathological hate of Poles for Russia.

China would most probably not fall for this, as for them there is not much to get out of such an embrace. For them there is already a de-facto G2, and the Chinese would simply advise the Americans, that they are open to summit meetings and much more coordination without giving such a summit any such nomenclatura as G2. That would just piss off the Russians, and SCO would be stillborn. The Chinese wouldn't mind backstabbing the Russians as long as they don't have to use the knife themselves, and even if, then at least it is not in public view and no photos are taken.
Last edited by RajeshA on 28 Jun 2009 05:44, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests