End User Agreement : India's capitulation to US interests ?

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 22 Jul 2009 16:04

This must be truly a Chanakyan move:

US may get to check Indian military bases

US inspectors would be given access to Indian military bases to inspect American military systems in service with the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force, under the text of the end-use monitoring agreement agreed upon by the two sides on Monday during US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's visit to India.

India does not have such an agreement with any other country, and many within the government and military are worried about its implications, given the geo-political unpredictability of South Asia.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_us ... es_1276191

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 16:05

somnath ji,
I too believe you are not a Singaporean. The remark was meant for Singaporeans. So please don't feel targeted.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 16:08

somnath wrote:the vote on Iran was absolutely in our national interest, why should we be supporting another country legitimising nuke weapons?

How does Iranian nuclear weapons matter to us if Pakistan has nukes? On the other hand we certainly lose the mineral trade.

This makes no sense to me.

---

Also the whole approach with which you take EUM is it self flawes ab initio (IMVHO), you start with fait accompli that we have to buy US stuff and hence no option but EUM and now lets see whats the least it can do.

I (and others) start with serious questions to your very basic assumption an first principles.

We have a nation with clear history of hurting us directly and through proxies in some clearly defined areas, that behavior still continues to a great degree.

Now we are ready to engage with them despite that and despite the fact they have done (NOTHING) to defray our past losses because of their behavior.

I would think that we should be looking at a AT LEAST fail safe paper agreement to cover ourselves before we proceed.

What we see is that despite being buggered continuously and getting no practical help from US of A, we not only are getting ready to pay them tons of cash and open our valuable market to them, but we are doing it at their terms. We cant even get a paper fig leaf to cover ourselves. (and people have hope that we will grow balls later when time comes when we cant even whimper now)

----

I hope you see why there is a huge gulf between your standpoint and that of the critics.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Jul 2009 16:11

somnath wrote:A report on End Use Monitoring, with case studies...

the checks are not exhaustive, not even random, but based on "risk assessments"....Reading prima facie, there isnt anyting that cannot be "managed" by us, if it came to that..

Seeing from the US side, they might not be random but for us, what will be the timings be?
Who does those risk assessments, definitely not India. Do we have a role in analyzing those? Whose risk are we talking about?

Now from an Indian perspective, they are random and completely at inoppurtune times.

no one's denying that - the vigorous debate on all issues is tetimony to that..Question is why should it be so kosher to argue in favour of the "anti imperialist" stand, while the argument to negotiate, to give-and-take, would be Mir Jafarian!

We gave away the physical onsite verification. But perhaps I missed it, where is the take part for India?

I havent heard any comment on the lines you are suggesting (too complex, leave it us etc) - the debate has been quite vigorous, and I for one find the defensiveness of the "other" side out of tune with the realities of new India...the new India deals with the world at a different level - so ISRO has not problems having US equipment onboard Chandrayaan, Indian companies dont fear foreign equity, the best Indian students do not go abroad for tertiary education, but climb the highest floors in the global corporate ladder...None of the "dur hato yeh duniyawalon hindustan hamaara hai" rubbish...MMS (and PVNR) started the process of its burial in 1992 - literally putting their necks on the block (remember the famous "sarfaroshi ki tamanna" budget speech?)...

praises of someday past with no relevance to issue.

Ravi_ku, addrssing your points..the vote on Iran was absolutely in our national interest, why should we be supporting another country legitimising nuke weapons?

Who is talking about nukes? Do you know that India blocked refined oil shipments to Iran for some time. Possibly these must have missed you. I am sure, iran must have taken note.

US diplomats meet our politicians, our diplomats meet Republican and Democratic politicians all the time as well! Hell, there is an Indian caucus in the US Congress that our diplomats regularly deal with - are we interetefring in their politics?

Do we meet even the third lying member of the governer race even before the election results?

If we dont think theuy will transfer tech, we dont buy, simple!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 16:50

somnath wrote:Question is why should it be so kosher to argue in favour of the "anti imperialist" stand, while the argument to negotiate, to give-and-take, would be Mir Jafarian!

somnath ji,
Isn't that a given when one deals with a country, with which one has a trust-deficit. The trust-deficit is justified on the basis of history of the Indo-US Relationship, and its moves in India's neighborhood.

Whenever there is a trust-deficit between two parties, your approach would be to arrive at an agreement which satisfies the concerns of both parties. The agreement would reflect those concerns with a list of benefits and obligations, dos and donts. Then one would deal with the other party all the time monitoring whether the other party now sticks to its promises.

So the criteria is whether all the concerns have been fully reflected in the agreement, and it does not place obligations on us, which go against our interests. Any dilution in these requirements would naturally provoke a protest.

Your approach, seems to me, to ignore the history and the trust-deficit, not to demand due diligence in the formulation of the agreement keeping the nation's concerns at the center.

I don't think anybody is arguing here we should not buy American defense equipment, only that we should buy them under conditions satisfactory to us, where our concerns have been looked after. All those who want to cut corners here, would of course invite severe criticism.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2009 16:58

OT.

How does Iranian nuclear weapons matter to us if Pakistan has nukes?

It does. The more nations/entities that have (good or bad) the bigger the headache. And, if the entity is "bad" or unpredictable it is that much the worse.

In the specific case of Iran, the nukes would be transferred to the ME for sure and then perhaps to other entities to force Islam perhaps. I would not put it past them to do that.

On the other hand we certainly lose the mineral trade.

Well, Iran is NOT a rich country. They need to sell in order to keep going too. They export oil, but import gas/petrol!! In a few more years that single trade balance is expected to go against them: they will start importing more than they export.

Like Pakis they will have to start eating grass too.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Jul 2009 17:02

"Somnath"? The same "Somnath" who earned his stripes on the "*Laughter of Democracy" chai-biskoot many solar eclipses ago?

But arguing on the side of the guvrmand???

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 17:03

NRao wrote:OT.

How does Iranian nuclear weapons matter to us if Pakistan has nukes?
It does. The more nations/entities that have (good or bad) the bigger the headache. And, if the entity is "bad" or unpredictable it is that much the worse.

As as been discussed to death before, whats the delta extra pressure on us for that? Seriously.

In the specific case of Iran, the nukes would be transferred to the ME for sure and then perhaps to other entities to force Islam perhaps. I would not put it past them to do that.

Unlike Pakistan's network I suppose? And as far as we are concerned that will put the Islamic-American-Chinese compact more at strain than Indian.

We already have Islamic nukes pointed at us, no else has this privilege. Lets spread the joy around.

Well, Iran is NOT a rich country. They need to sell in order to keep going too. They export oil, but import gas/petrol!! In a few more years that single trade balance is expected to go against them: they will start importing more than they export.

I used the word mineral trade, and its usefulness for India. what you say is actually good for India right? We can take their oil and send them grass a lot of it grows near Manali, even the Israelis come here for it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 17:09

We gave away the physical onsite verification. But perhaps I missed it, where is the take part for India?

There have been several reports which state that verification will take place at a date and time of India's choosing, even in a third country if desired.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 17:11

what happens if tommorow one has to gift kashmir, arunachal pradesh, north east, punjab, bengal, tamilnadu, deccan, orissa gujarat.......,

Has MMS given one square centimeter of Indian land away?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 17:13

Or perhaps the case in future where -- India is refusing to buy any more spares for 200 MMRCAs from America ever in future since they did not send the supplies for a crucial 6 months period ?

This has nothing to do with the EUMA and its signing or non-signing.

If the US is an untrustworthy supplier, that has to taken into consideration when selecting vendors.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 17:19

Gerard wrote:
Or perhaps the case in future where -- India is refusing to buy any more spares for 200 MMRCAs from America ever in future since they did not send the supplies for a crucial 6 months period ?
This has nothing to do with the EUMA and its signing or non-signing.

If the US is an untrustworthy supplier, that has to taken into consideration when selecting vendors.

Yes, and the first thing that you take into account while dealing with a untrustworth partner is to sign a paper which protects your right totally and does not give them any lever what so ever. This is obvious.

EUM is an additional lever.

----

Meanwhile my point was in context of how, US despite being clearly untrustworthy, we have taken no measure what so ever to protect our interests (since 2003) and therefore your hope that US will be deterred by souring relationships is a little off the course.

Also the inertia that a large purchase from US will build in will only compounded by this and not lessened.

We are going from bad to worse with the justification being "its wasn't so good before too so why crib"

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jul 2009 17:33

Yes, and the first thing that you take into account while dealing with a untrustworth partner is to sign a paper which protects your right totally and does not give them any lever what so ever. This is obvious.

What paper can protect your rights against an untrustworthy supplier?
Contracts can and have been unilaterally voided. Will the paper allow the plane to fly if it needs parts?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2009 17:36

As as been discussed to death before, whats the delta extra pressure on us for that? Seriously.

Sorry about the "discussed to death before". I did not follow it. But, perhaps I can bring another angle?

The delta extra pressure. It will get worse for India. Our friend China will use that - as they have in all circumstances around us. Then there is the ever present, sublime, tendency to this time around to convert India. That "pressure" if let go can only increase.

India has always had some pressure, but, due to our nature we do not tackle simple problems, which then grow and then we tackle them at a far greater cost. (Case in point is the national ID which Nilekhani(sp?) is heading. It was suggested in 1975!!! Then there are plenty of other issues - rural India has plenty.) Iran's nuclearization - for that matter any other countries nuclearization - is a problem, just that Pakistan and Iran will pose a special one (say, as opposed to Japan or Australia or Brazil or South Africa - they ALL will too, but Iran will be more special among them).

I used the word mineral trade, and its usefulness for India. what you say is actually good for India right? We can take their oil and send them grass a lot of it grows near Manali, even the Israelis come here for it.

No. From an economic PoV, it is good for India is right - true. BUT, what I am SAYING is that it is leverage that India has with Iran, to make Iran think twice. It is an economic leverage to be used in the political realm.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2009 17:50

As as been discussed to death before, whats the delta extra pressure on us for that? Seriously.

On second thought, the "delta" FOR INDIA, will be huuuuge.

Everyone and his grandfather has always coveted Indian Geo. No two ways about it. There are plenty that STILL do. Anyone who owns a nuke will either as an individual or in concert with someone else will either try and control India (making constant problems) or denuke India (to gain direct control).

No two ways about that.

The BEST thing for India is a nuclear-weapons free world.

A nuclear ANY country is not going to be the same country as it was without a nuke. Cannot be. India may be an odd ball in that respect.

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 22 Jul 2009 18:16

What is the End-Use Monitoring Agreement?

http://news.rediff.com/special/2009/jul ... tsheet.htm

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 18:47

^^^ the level of defensiveness is simply astounding....On site physical verification is the bone of contention - never mind that we are yet to buy anything (and the option remains with us), never mind if we do, the time and place of the same would be of our choosing...

the danger being perceived is that it would give them a chance to "snoop" into our facilities...Well, today we are actually INVITING them (and not just them, but also British, Australian, Singaporeans) in our bases - in their squadron and brigade strengths - to Kalaikunda, to Gwalior, to Varaingete, to SASE Gulmarg...If they required any chance to snoop, they have proper invitation cards from us, they dont need the excuse of EUM!!!And guess what, we too are going "there" - to Nellis, to Edwards - so I guess we too could snoop if we wanted!

Trustworthiness of suppliers - who is? Ruissia routinely delays and hikes prices...Routinely tries to pass off second hand material as new...France (from M2k days) sells expensive, services even more expensive....We manage these in our military operational framework...But EUM is beyond us?

This is not a question of trust deficit, its a question of confidence deficit...The "dur hato dyeh duniyawalon" mentality...

OT - but absolutely nobody should acquire nuclear weapons as far as we are concerned..Certainly not an unstable muslim nation in our neighbourhood...We have a seat now in the high table, and we are with the rest of the members of the "club" to prevent anymore gatecrashes....Our relations with Iran are multi faceted, and interests converge on many aspects like Afganistan..but not on Iran acquiring nukes...

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 19:03

somnath wrote: OT - but absolutely nobody should acquire nuclear weapons as far as we are concerned..Certainly not an unstable muslim nation in our neighbourhood...We have a seat now in the high table, and we are with the rest of the members of the "club" to prevent anymore gatecrashes....Our relations with Iran are multi faceted, and interests converge on many aspects like Afganistan..but not on Iran acquiring nukes...

Is it me ..or I read some NPA paranoia being reproduced as is here. What moral right or locus standi do you me or India have to decide whether IRAN should acquire nukes ? specially when IRAN has never exhibited hostile behavior or intentions against India.

All this moral high talk reminds me of big brother attitude which Unkil is known for i.e. responsibility of bringing democracy and ensuring world peace .

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 19:10

negi wrote: Is it me ..or I read some NPA paranoia being reproduced as is here. What moral right or locus standi do you me or India have to decide whether IRAN should acquire nukes ? specially when IRAN has never exhibited hostile behavior or intentions against India.

All this moral high talk reminds me of big brother attitude which Unkil is known for i.e. responsibility of bringing democracy and ensuring world peace .

Morality in international politics is an oxymoron...All that matters is India's interests..And it is not in our interest to have anyone join the nuke club...not Iran, not NK, not Japan, not anyone...We are part of an elite club, and its in our interests to preserve our elitism..

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Jul 2009 19:17

somnath wrote: Morality in international politics is an oxymoron...All that matters is India's interests..And it is not in our interest to have anyone join the nuke club...not Iran, not NK, not Japan, not anyone...We are part of an elite club, and its in our interests to preserve our elitism..

Ah I see ...so according to you the bias and seclusion of India by the so called elite club in last 30 years was justified as they were only protecting their interests ? How convenient ...such tripe how about taking your LAHORI logik to another level..lets bomb em...afterall we are protecting our interests .

I am amused at the folks who have lappup NPA and Amriki paranoia and see every other developing country as a threat no wonder they fail to see the actual culprit amidst the bruhaaa.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 22 Jul 2009 19:51

negi wrote:
somnath wrote: Morality in international politics is an oxymoron...All that matters is India's interests..And it is not in our interest to have anyone join the nuke club...not Iran, not NK, not Japan, not anyone...We are part of an elite club, and its in our interests to preserve our elitism..
Ah I see ...so according to you the bias and seclusion of India by the so called elite club in last 30 years was justified as they were only protecting their interests ? How convenient ...such tripe how about taking your LAHORI logik to another level..lets bomb em...afterall we are protecting our interests .

I am amused at the folks who have lappup NPA and Amriki paranoia and see every other developing country as a threat no wonder they fail to see the actual culprit amidst the bruhaaa.

Negi,
On this point I would agree with Somnath. The old adage that "In International politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests". As you correctly pointed out that for the last 30 years India was kept out of the elite club. At that point in time, our national interest was to get into that club and we used every means possible to get to that (incl. moral grandstanding). Now that we are in the club, our national interest dictates that we restrict the membership to that club by any means possible (incl. moral grand-standing of a different kind). Applying absolute morals to any situation in international diplomacy will not work in our favour.

Edited: AoA ... with that post I have again graduated from trainee to BRF-ite. Hope demotion does not happen again

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 19:56

somnath wrote:This is not a question of trust deficit, its a question of confidence deficit...The "dur hato dyeh duniyawalon" mentality...

If it was a question of confidence deficit, India would have dealt with Russia and France similarly. It is a question of trust deficit with USA, which should not manifest itself as paranoia. We should proceed to engage the Americans. But when we deal with a country with which we have a certain trust deficit, the rules of engagement would be much stricter. That is to be expected.

"Dur hato yeh duniyawalon, yeh desh hamara hai" should not be rubbished that easily. We were colonized, and some colonized mentalities even today don't appreciate this call for independent thinking. It doesn't imply, we should not engage with other duniyawalon in our country, but rather we should engage with them on our terms.

somnath wrote:OT - but absolutely nobody should acquire nuclear weapons as far as we are concerned..Certainly not an unstable muslim nation in our neighbourhood...We have a seat now in the high table, and we are with the rest of the members of the "club" to prevent anymore gatecrashes....Our relations with Iran are multi faceted, and interests converge on many aspects like Afganistan..but not on Iran acquiring nukes...

If somebody allows you to sit at the same 'high' table, it simply means you are the last among the equals, the lowest in the hierarchy at this table. If you are invited to this high table, you agree to accept this hierarchy and support the power structures that keep this hierarchy stationery. Truly great powers first force their way into this hierarchy, and then force this hierarchy to change. For that the prescribers of the above formula have no answer - how to change the hierarchy at the table. Slave minds cannot fathom that gulf of confidence.

India has to consider not only how to get to the high table, but get to it, because others cannot ignore your might, and when there to change the hierarchy. India's strategic relations with a whole bunch of countries would decide how we barge in into the elite club. Indo-Iran relations would be crucial in determining our place in the hierarchy.

RavinM · Post by **RavinM** » 22 Jul 2009 20:25

I am sorry, but why such despair? if the US wants to do an inspection of the reactors they are building, whats the problem? I think the rationale, is to "use" and not get "used"

, it signals that they wont get the MRCA contract, so it's the MIG 35's for sure, what if you want to use their supercomputer or some hi-tech device to build something? they can inspect their stuff which was only a "bridge in the gap", but they cant have a say on how we use something we created! this is much better than being denied, at the first instance!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Jul 2009 20:41

If somebody allows you to sit at the same 'high' table, it simply means you are the last among the equals, the lowest in the hierarchy at this table. If you are invited to this high table, you agree to accept this hierarchy and support the power structures that keep this hierarchy stationery. Truly great powers first force their way into this hierarchy, and then force this hierarchy to change. For that the prescribers of the above formula have no answer - how to change the hierarchy at the table. Slave minds cannot fathom that gulf of confidence.

India has to consider not only how to get to the high table, but get to it, because others cannot ignore your might, and when there to change the hierarchy. India's strategic relations with a whole bunch of countries would decide how we barge in into the elite club. Indo-Iran relations would be crucial in determining our place in the hierarchy.

RajeshA, ascent to power is progressive....Changing power equations is not a one shot thing - unless a decisive war changes the equations...US didnt get where it is in one decisive moment...

Currently, we have forc ed our way into the club, maybe as a last member..The time for us is to reorganise the club through mutual give-and-take with other members...Bide our time as we get even more influential...And then change hierarchy as well...Indo-Iran relations are important in a particular context...But a stand against its nuclearisation is fair game...Not just as a chip to use vis a vis the Western powers, but also in our own interest.....I have zero time for third world solidarity mentalities - another relic of the wasted '60s..

EUM is an option, and when you buy an option, you simply buy a right, and not incur any obilgation...As I mentioned earlier, in case the US wants to snoop around, they have official invites from us for joint exercises - they dont need EUM excuses to do that...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jul 2009 21:08

somnath wrote:RajeshA, ascent to power is progressive....Changing power equations is not a one shot thing - unless a decisive war changes the equations...US didnt get where it is in one decisive moment...

Yes, decisive wars change power equations. We should note that. That is one reason, why we should not hurry in jumping at 'final resolutions' in our immediate neighborhood. No power really rises, without winning a decisive war. So we should keep some options open.

somnath wrote:Currently, we have forced our way into the club, maybe as a last member..The time for us is to reorganise the club through mutual give-and-take with other members...Bide our time as we get even more influential...And then change hierarchy as well...

There are only 4 independent powers in the world, IMHO - USA (+West), China, Russia and Islamic Chaos. India is not a power. It is an entity that shows signs of co-option, that the West would take India under its wings as a multiplier of their own power. That is the invitation that we will get, as a subordinate power. It would feel like the high table, but it won't be. There will still be a back-room for the big boys, the G-2 room or something. It is not a lack of confidence, that inspires me to say that and go against the hyperbole. It is simply the truth. To sit at the table, India would have to show it can wield raw power and if necessary more brutally than anybody else, as and when our national interest is on the line. We are still far from it.

Sure, we have come a long way already, but when we start celebrating it, let us not forget why we have come this far. It is certainly not because of acquiescence but because of some of our independent-minded leaders and all those soldiers, who fought for the country.

So all this "India is a global power" is all good hyperbole for the middle-class masses, who lap it up to compensate for their mental weakness, for their identity loss. It doesn't impress the big boys. The Chinese just giggle behind our backs, because they know the truth.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2009 21:51

So we were signing these EUVM for years, the first one was signed by NDA (for Artillery locating Radars) and than several more since than.

Each time a different one with its own paper trail etc

What we have agreed on (not signed) now is that we'll have a standard format for babus in future deals if/as and when they happen.

Nothing has changed except that there will be less redtape in future?

There is no denying that US defense deals, which come with this EUVM (particularly Enhanced EUVM), are more intrusive than others where only assurances and paper trails of buyer country are probably sufficient. Every defense contractor/seller comes with its own advantages and disadvantages it's up to buyer to take those factors in to account and find the best deal.

There may be cases where seer technological sophistications or cost advantages may justify possible intrusive inspection and India should keep that option open if it wants to exercise it. There may be instances where possibility of these inspections over rules any other advantages and Indians would know that. Where intrusive inspections are an issue even the RFI/RFP would not be issued to US companies.

Our history is filled with bitter experience in dealing with USA so it is natural that a lot of folks are very uncomfortable in dealings with US. But we can not stay stuck in past with our grudges, we have to move on and forge new relations with countries who has overlapping interests with us. There will be mistakes and missteps for sure but risk and cost of not doing anything or doing it too slow would be great too.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 22:43

Katare wrote: What we have agreed on (not signed) now is that we'll have a standard format for babus in future deals if/as and when they happen.

Nothing has changed except that there will be less redtape in future?
.

Sigh... please take the trouble to read some of thread before starting from square 1, BRF oldies should display a little more knowledge of the matter at hand before jumping in.

to make it easy, but one of many reasons (from before)

------

We have a nation with clear history of hurting us directly and through proxies in some clearly defined areas, that behavior still continues to a great degree.

Now we are ready to engage with them despite that and despite the fact they have done (NOTHING) to defray our past losses because of their behavior.

I would think that we should be looking at a AT LEAST fail safe paper agreement to cover ourselves before we proceed.

What we see is that despite being buggered continuously and getting no practical help from US of A, we not only are getting ready to pay them tons of cash and open our valuable market to them, but we are doing it at their terms. We cant even get a paper fig leaf to cover ourselves. (and people have hope that we will grow balls later when time comes when we cant even whimper now)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 22:45

Gerard wrote:
Yes, and the first thing that you take into account while dealing with a untrustworth partner is to sign a paper which protects your right totally and does not give them any lever what so ever. This is obvious.
What paper can protect your rights against an untrustworthy supplier?
Contracts can and have been unilaterally voided. Will the paper allow the plane to fly if it needs parts?

True, lets sign just about anything then in the end papers dont matter its only trust.

Sorry such a simple thing didnt realize it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 22:46

NRao wrote:The BEST thing for India is a nuclear-weapons free world.

Okay now the discussion has gone to Rahul Mehta world.

Since the best is not gonna happen courtesy dear uncle first and foremost in any practical time frame, whats next?

---

And Iran with its given hate of Jews and US will target us first when it gets the Nukes?

Please as some on living in India my view towards NK are Iranian Nukes is EXACTLY the same

"Mainoo kee"

Let US wash away a lot of its paaps of the past. It is hardly likely to be a issue for me before it is an issue for lot of people who have given Pak nukes.

We shall then see.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 22 Jul 2009 23:14

Sanku,
I read each and every page of this thread before posting my views on it, I do not know what part of my post you think is incorrect and why?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:23

Katare wrote:Sanku,
I read each and every page of this thread before posting my views on it, I do not know what part of my post you think is incorrect and why?

That is because the question you raised with respect to one time vs multiple EUMs has already a few posts in reply.

For example I made a few points which nobody chose to rebut in this discussion. Why dont you take one of those as starting point? Otherwise we will be going back to page 1 again.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jul 2009 23:26

Since the best is not gonna happen courtesy dear uncle first and foremost in any practical time frame, whats next?

THAT is easy.

Prevent ALL/ANY other nation going nuclear.

BTW, IMHO, the easy way to NPT/CTBT is to get more nations to go nuclear. Force the issue. After all the US and China have to be afraid of something - push in that direction.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Jul 2009 23:33

NRao wrote:
Since the best is not gonna happen courtesy dear uncle first and foremost in any practical time frame, whats next?
THAT is easy.

Prevent ALL/ANY other nation going nuclear.

BTW, IMHO, the easy way to NPT/CTBT is to get more nations to go nuclear. Force the issue. After all the US and China have to be afraid of something - push in that direction.

We are going seriously OT, I will just say, there was this discussion before on BRF and I am with Shiv on the why its "mainoo kee" if Iran goes Nuclear.

Perhaps Uncle should give us a reason to really care, instead of just threatening us.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 23 Jul 2009 00:13

Gerard wrote:
We gave away the physical onsite verification. But perhaps I missed it, where is the take part for India?
There have been several reports which state that verification will take place at a date and time of India's choosing, even in a third country if desired.

I am trying to see them this way. I compare EULAs or their equivalents of French, Russia and our other suppliers. I see no such thing as on-site verification.
Now I turn to US and see that we have given away physical onsite verification extra. What have we got back in return? You are saying we gave away less of it, doesnt mean we didnt give away something. Where is the take part for us in the whole equation?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 23 Jul 2009 00:16

Gerard wrote:
what happens if tommorow one has to gift kashmir, arunachal pradesh, north east, punjab, bengal, tamilnadu, deccan, orissa gujarat.......,
Has MMS given one square centimeter of Indian land away?

Gerard,
You know as well I myself, it was rhetoric to match his rhetoric of only economic issues matter and for it being servile doesnt matter.

P.S: note that I didnt use MMS, I used "one"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jul 2009 02:41

End-use agreement will address all concerns: Antony

NEW DELHI: Defence Minister A.K. Antony on Wednesday asserted that the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) with the United States was a product of “hard bargaining,” and it would take care of all concerns.

A day after the UPA government was criticised in Parliament for having agreed to the arrangement, he told journalists, on the sidelines of a function here, that “all concerns have been addressed after three years of hard bargaining.”
...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jul 2009 02:45

EUMA cannot be justified - The Hindu Editorial

...
On the nuclear issue, for example, the United States cannot demand that India go ahead with placing orders for billions of dollars worth of American equipment while itself undermining the principle of full civil nuclear cooperation — by pushing for the exclusion of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items from India’s waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Although the Indian side raised the ENR question, it is far from clear how much of an impact it had on Ms Clinton. As for the EUMA, there is no justification for allowing onerous end-use verification for American military hardware when other suppliers do not insist on the same. If the Manmohan Singh government thought otherwise, it should have had a proper discussion in Parliament ahead of concluding any agreement on so sensitive a matter.
...
...
But for this dialogue to be meaningful, it cannot be a sideshow to the business of arms sales and nuclear plants, which is all that Washington seems to be interested in at the moment.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 23 Jul 2009 03:47

US defence deal: the inside story - K.P. NAYAR

Washington, July 22: The delicate negotiations that led India and the US to announce on Monday that they had “agreed on the end-use monitoring arrangements” for bilateral defence deals were as much contentious within the Indian government as they were in getting the Americans to accept New Delhi’s formula.

Defence minister A.K. Antony diluted his long-standing opposition to foreign inspection of military assets bought from America after he was shown documents where the men in uniform under his oversight had arbitrarily put in what they chose to fit into contracts with the US.

The external affairs ministry revealed at an inter-ministerial meeting that some provisions put in by India’s defence personnel into recent contracts with America were far more objectionable than anything that Washington was asking New Delhi to sign as an over-arching agreement.

External affairs officials shocked many of those who attended the inter-ministerial meeting when they further revealed that these provisions had been suo motu inserted into contracts without political clearance by the foreign office, and worse, without even their knowledge.

“It was like being more loyal to the king than the king himself,” said an official who attended the meeting. “In their desire to get American war toys, individual senior officers were willing to do what the Americans had not even asked.”

Foreign minister S.M. Krishna, who was continuously abroad for most of this month and then in Bangalore because of a bereavement, was comprehensively briefed on the history of the tortuous end-use pact negotiations on the eve of his meeting with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

He agreed to go along with the “arrangement” when he was convinced that a standard, agreed text would prevent individuals from taking advantage of the secrecy in arms deals and manipulating clauses on purchase agreements as they pleased.

Officers of the ministry of defence and finance or those in charge of public sector defence production enterprises have now been restrained in their freedom to craft end-use clauses while buying American equipment or technology.

Officers negotiating arms sales with the Americans will henceforth have to stick to the exact text of standard clauses of what can and cannot be allowed as end-use monitoring by the US.

This standard text has large elements of the model monitoring agreement that the US signs with other countries that buy defence equipment.

But it also borrows heavily from the end-use certification requirements that Delhi imposes on countries that acquire Indian defence equipment. “We even go to military bases in foreign countries and physically count the guns and other material long after we have sold or given them to those governments,” said one official.

He said it would have been “a double standard if India continued to tell the Americans that we can do something to other governments, but that they cannot do it to us.”

Once people in the Indian government settled their differences, the next task for South Block was to sell the “arrangement” to the Americans.

It helped that Antony had made it clear to US national security adviser James Jones last month in New Delhi that the UPA government would be unable to politically sell the idea of a comprehensive end-use pact that allowed the US access to Indian military bases for inspections and had other intrusive clauses.

Jones returned to Washington and reported what Antony had said. US sources said President Barack Obama, defence secretary Robert Gates and Clinton understood the political compulsions of the UPA government: they are in such situations themselves on almost a daily basis.

But US officials down the line were unwilling to agree to the Indian formula, complaining that New Delhi was always getting exemptions from US laws and standards as in the nuclear deal.

During an hour-long meeting at the White House on the eve of her departure for Mumbai, Clinton got Obama’s personal clearance for the “arrangement but no agreement” formula.

From multiple US accounts yesterday, Clinton told only a close circle in the state department about the “arrangement” until she was in New Delhi. As a result, her officials in Washington continued to talk about an end-use monitoring agreement to be signed between the two sides when that was actually not to be.

Aren't all agreements cleared by the legal and foreign affairs cell? How can individual service offers insert their own clauses? And it might not be limited to just US, but such extraneous clauses might be in agreements with other countries too.And aren't the agreements signed by secretary/under-secretary of defence? Is this how the MoD signs agreements?

And are these aberrations the justification for signing similar agreement on a wider scale? Or is it being spun that way to deflect criticism?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Jul 2009 05:35

End-user pact is unclear on random US checks in India

The Pentagon's Tiger teams may have carried out at least one inspection in India between 2002 and now, though the defence ministry hesitates to discuss it.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 23 Jul 2009 05:50

KP Nayar is a Washington based chap.

Defence Contracts are NOT signed or drafted by defence officers, unless they mean th Defence Ministry bureaucrats.