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

[Katare]

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.

Sanku,

Not trying to tech you english but the following (quoted below) was not a question but a statement with question mark intended on asking others to chip in if they have additional information.........

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

Sorta like that's my openion do you agree kind of statement.

A question would have read like

"What has changed except that there will be less redtape in future?"

As per your request of replying to your specific posts-

1) I don't like "one on one"
2) Your position appears to me as one that is based on strong 'idielogy' and 'faith' while mine is lot more flexible and shallow

Lets leave it there!

[somnath]

^^^ Till now, all defence equipment bought was being covered under bespoke, individual EUMs..which meant that depending on the size of the deal, MoD bureaucrats and/or defence officers of various ranks would be able to sign off on the conditionalities...And as incumebent "negotiators" change all the time, the EUM entered into will keep suffering from "key man" risks. The overarching EUVA now takes the decision making standard, and substantially out of the discretionary powers of MoD bureaucrats..

All military contracts are finally "negotiated" by the PNC (Price Negotiations Committee)..It has reps from MoD, services, DRDO and anybody else relevant (like a PSU in case there is license manufacture) - the final terms and conditions are concluded with the vendor by the PNC. An overarching EUVA makes the issue of EUM a constant, and not a variable, minmising the time taken..

In case KP Nayar is correct, and we have only an arrangement, and not an agreement (which is more formalised), it would be further proof of the extent to which we are managing to get our way. BAsically, we still keep the whole thinig vague enough for us to ask for another "arrangement" should we deem fit!

[Virupaksha]

^^^ Till now, all defence equipment bought was being covered under bespoke, individual EUMs..which meant that depending on the size of the deal, MoD bureaucrats and/or defence officers of various ranks would be able to sign off on the conditionalities...And as incumebent "negotiators" change all the time, the EUM entered into will keep suffering from "key man" risks. The overarching EUVA now takes the decision making standard, and substantially out of the discretionary powers of MoD bureaucrats..

but it also meant the US and the Indian bureaucrats had to do extra work for getting the deal done.

All military contracts are finally "negotiated" by the PNC (Price Negotiations Committee)..It has reps from MoD, services, DRDO and anybody else relevant (like a PSU in case there is license manufacture) - the final terms and conditions are concluded with the vendor by the PNC. An overarching EUVA makes the issue of EUM a constant, and not a variable, minmising the time taken..

Why the hurry now? Why to sell India short when you have big ticket items like MRCA and co coming up?

In case KP Nayar is correct, and we have only an arrangement, and not an agreement (which is more formalised), it would be further proof of the extent to which we are managing to get our way. BAsically, we still keep the whole thinig vague enough for us to ask for another "arrangement" should we deem fit!

yada, yada, yada - discussed in the previous pages of what exactly it is. smoke and mirrors to fool India for hiding the sell-out.

[somnath]

but it also meant the US and the Indian bureaucrats had to do extra work for getting the deal done.

Whats the point? As it is all military purchases are arduous enough!

Why the hurry now? Why to sell India short when you have big ticket items like MRCA and co coming up?

So that in case (note the emphasis) we choose the F18, we dont spend another 1 year defining the contours of the specific EUM (in case the Def Sec, or God forbid, the govt changes during that, the time will be more!)..

yada, yada, yada - discussed in the previous pages of what exactly it is. smoke and mirrors to fool India for hiding the sell-out.

India is too large and too important to be sold out by anyone, even a "sold out" PM...People BTW said the same thing in 1992, when the first flush of reforms took place - look what happened since then!

[Virupaksha]

Why the hurry now? Why to sell India short when you have big ticket items like MRCA and co coming up?

So that in case (note the emphasis) we choose the F18, we dont spend another 1 year defining the contours of the specific EUM (in case the Def Sec, or God forbid, the govt changes during that, the time will be more!)..

and lose(sry already lost) the biggest bargaining chip in the process

[Sanku]

Lets leave it there!

Fair enough so my initial points of why EUM is a terrible pain in the neck stays. No has chosen to rebut my points.

[vera_k]

End user pact brings India into non-proliferation mainstream

So it's more about non-proliferation than about any arms deals?

[RayC]

Obama is in dire straits to shore up his nation.

He requires our money and that too badly!

Let's play our cards right!

He needs us, more than we need him!

[csharma]

Can the experts explain how the EUMA brings India into non-proliferation mainstream? All the while I thought it had to do with military hardware.

[somnath]

Can the experts explain how the EUMA brings India into non-proliferation mainstream? All the while I thought it had to do with military hardware.

Exactly the sort of hyperbole that the US admin has to play for its domestic audience..EUMA means that India wont resell equipment bought from the US to other countries without authorisation from the US (for example, our sale of Islander aircraft to Myanmar!)..Now non proliferation is more concerned with nuke weapons, not conventional ones - but the EUMA only caters to the latter as India is not purchasing any nuke weapons from the US! The spokesman doesnt know his marbkles wghen he talks of this being talked about in the IAEA..

As of now, IMHO this is a good option that we have bought..Serious american competition will lick the French and Russia into much better shape in terms of their offering to us..

As for americans visiting military bases - as I said before, we are inviting them to our bases these days....And they are inviting us as well to theirs...If it were so easy to snoop, we could be snooping around as well, couldnt we?

[RajeshA]

If they have to have an End-User Arrangement/Agreement with the USA, they can have purchase-specific standard-text EUMA, but in this case, we also need a sort of an Umbrella EUM Agreement which says that no new US Laws would act on these individual EUMAs retroactively.

The individual EUMAs can help
- in cutting time to purchase, which is a buyer-friendly feature.

- in giving USA a level playing field, which is both a supplier-friendly as well as buyer-friendly feature - buyer friendly also because it allows a higher level of competition for orders, thereby helps sink the prices of all suppliers.

- in removing the vagaries of individual negotiations by Defense-Ministry teams, which probably would work more to the detriment of the buyer. Whenever Indian Military goes to the USA for a certain item, it usually does that because the item is not available from its traditional suppliers. When the USA knows that only it can supply such an item, it would force a much stringent EUMA down the throats of the Indian negotiators. With a standard-text EUMA arrangement, the same text would apply to all purchases including those which can only be bought from the USA. It is to be expected, that a standard-text EUMA arrangement would have the most favorable buyer-specific conditionalities.

It does remove another hurdle for USA, which it had wrt selling equipment to India, thereby some people may think the Indians lose another lever to influence either their pricing or their foreign policy towards the Indian Subcontinent. That is however something like inviting a friend to a beer in another city. The friend may be tempted by the beer, but would probably think it is not worth the trouble. With a standard-text EUMA Arrangement, we are saying to USA, you will be treated just like others. You have just as much chance of getting contracts as any other. Only if the other does not feel disadvantaged from the outset, would the other be willing to compete seriously, and only if the other competes seriously would the other also be willing to give serious thought to lower pricing, more extras, more transfer of technology terms, and a foreign policy considerate of our interests.

Now Russia, France, Israel, Scandinavians, Brits, Ukrainians, Americans all have to compete with each other on basis of pricing, features, terms, and lobbying. That is ultimately where we influence the Americans to see the world our way, not on some EUMA negotiating table.

[arnab]

Can the experts also inform whether we have some form of 'end user agreement' for our military exports? For e.g could Ecuador resell the Dhruvs to China without our consent?

[Sanku]

RajeshA, that is incorrect, all the nations are not competing on the same terms EUMA skews things in favor of US it would be level if all had EUMA.

Also the US has not been a friend so far at all, and has been extremely problematic, on what basis are we inviting the local gunda who has helped my neighbor escape with impunity every time he leched at my wife and made lewd comments at her into my house with such open arms?

We are trying to buy our way into favor of the gunda?

[Sanku]

Can the experts also inform whether we have some form of 'end user agreement' for our military exports? For e.g could Ecuador resell the Dhruvs to China without our consent?

There is a difference between end user agreement and also monitoring, as opposed to just a agreement to not sell further.

[arnab]

Can the experts also inform whether we have some form of 'end user agreement' for our military exports? For e.g could Ecuador resell the Dhruvs to China without our consent?

There is a difference between end user agreement and also monitoring, as opposed to just a agreement to not sell further.

hmm.. so assuming we have an 'agreement' but no 'monitoring' - would it be correct to presume that Ecuador could retain the shell of Dhruv and sell the Turbomeca engine to China? That would then be an issue for France to follow-up. So through the EUM the US wants to prevent us from providing details of the AESA radar to say Russia (assuming we buy US aircrafts). I guess it is more of their 'trust but verify' philosophy.

[amit]

Can the experts explain how the EUMA brings India into non-proliferation mainstream? All the while I thought it had to do with military hardware.

Exactly the sort of hyperbole that the US admin has to play for its domestic audience..EUMA means that India wont resell equipment bought from the US to other countries without authorisation from the US (for example, our sale of Islander aircraft to Myanmar!)..Now non proliferation is more concerned with nuke weapons, not conventional ones - but the EUMA only caters to the latter as India is not purchasing any nuke weapons from the US! The spokesman doesnt know his marbkles wghen he talks of this being talked about in the IAEA..

Somnath,

It could very well be that the official knows exactly what he's talking about. We sometimes forget that US of A is also a democracy and the government has to sell decisions to stake holders just as the Indian government has to. And there are hawks just as there are doves in the US, again like India.

If KP's article in The Telegraph is to be taken at face-value (I would since over the years he's proved to be a reliable source of information) then there was a lot of opposition within the US govt itself about the omnibus EUMA for India.

However, if you can add the acronym NPT to the totally unrelated EUMA and draw a tenuous connection then that could make a lot of people happy in the US and allow the EUMA to slip through.

Please note that all the above is mere speculation on my part. It could well be that something totally different is happening and your explanation may be correct.

JMT

[RajeshA]

RajeshA, that is incorrect, all the nations are not competing on the same terms EUMA skews things in favor of US it would be level if all had EUMA.

Also the US has not been a friend so far at all, and has been extremely problematic, on what basis are we inviting the local gunda who has helped my neighbor escape with impunity every time he leched at my wife and made lewd comments at her into my house with such open arms?

We are trying to buy our way into favor of the gunda?

I would supposes, that EUMA imposes conditions on India, even though they have been relaxed to some extent through the 3-year bargaining, whereas any purchases from other countries do not impose conditions. The Americans need the EUMA because of their Laws. Since other countries do not impose such conditions, wouldn't the other countries be better placed to compete in the Indian defense market. EUMA still skews the terms to the detriment of the USA as supplier, not in its favor. The Indian Military would be shopping in USA only if it feels that the price, quality, features, terms, ToT, etc offered in the American sale far outweighs the offers of the others as well as the conditionalities of EUMA.

No, USA has not been a friend and that is true. We have a severe trust-deficit with them.

But Sanku ji, we also have huge challenges from PRC and TSP, and we have to look there first. If an Indian defense purchase from US helps us improve on our prospects viz-a-viz these countries, then I am not in favor of making our ties to the USA a slave to our history and lack of trust. We should not lose sight of who the culprit neighbor, our primary target, is.

[somnath]

Somnath,

It could very well be that the official knows exactly what he's talking about. We sometimes forget that US of A is also a democracy and the government has to sell decisions to stake holders just as the Indian government has to. And there are hawks just as there are doves in the US, again like India.

If KP's article in The Telegraph is to be taken at face-value (I would since over the years he's proved to be a reliable source of information) then there was a lot of opposition within the US govt itself about the omnibus EUMA for India.

However, if you can add the acronym NPT to the totally unrelated EUMA and draw a tenuous connection then that could make a lot of people happy in the US and allow the EUMA to slip through.

Please note that all the above is mere speculation on my part. It could well be that something totally different is happening and your explanation may be correct.

JMT

NPT is a multilateral treaty - EUMA is bilateral, and has nothing to do with nukes...

RajeshA, its the opposite of what you are surmising. In bespoke EUMA, the seller (US) will play along depending on the desperation of the buyer..So something that India is really desperate for (read, no lertantive) they would lay down real intrusive norms..But a standard overarching EUVA will have the min common denominator of both positions, and the US position would be dominated by the levels they would go to for the "large" contracts like MRCA, where they would have substantially lower standards than real critical tech like (say) Aegis....

Therefore, for the competitve trades, the EUVA is one of the many factors in the decision matrix (other factors mioght include Russian proclivity for cost escalations!)..For the monopolistic ones, the EUVA is far better than what the US would have imposed on stand alone basis!

[amit]

Arnab,

May be the point to look at is that the EUMA is not something that's totally new.

The first EUMA was signed by the NDA govt sometime in 2002 for weapons locating radars, which by their very nature are always at forward positions/bases to be effective. And I don't really think for verification they are always dismantled and brought to some place like say Delhi. Hence I'm sure the Indian Army has worked out some modalities to ensure that vital secrets are kept out of the preview of the inspectors.

Since then there have been others like the Trenton (apologies if I've got the spelling wrong).

Now the point is, for sure EUMA is a nuisance. However, does the armed forces think that such nuisance is worth accepting for the benefit that the equipment brings?

For example, the weapons locating radars was something we sorely missed during Kargil (if my memory serves me right) and resulted in a lot of preventable deaths as the Pak Army big canons couldn't be taken out.

The final decision on whether or not we go for US equipment will be for the Armed forces to take.

EUMA, IMO is like getting a driver's licence. I can go through the pain for qualifying for one by giving various tests. However, once I get it, it's my choice whether I want to actually drive or take the public transport.

As I see it the effort is to get a standardised EUMA which is not susceptible to future changes in the US law which gives India the option of buying US equipment with less hassle.

A per equipment EUMA as opposed to a standarised EUMA not subject to change is that US laws may change in future and so what is acceptable say now may not be after new legislation. IMHO of course.

The simple point as Gerard and others have been trying to highlight without much success is that a EUMA agreement is not the same as actually taking a decision to buy US equipment.

Do also note that if, for example, we don't finally sign the EUMA but at a later stage one of the US F-numbered planes wins the MRCA contract because our Air Force guys think they offer the best bang for the buck, we'd still have to sign a EUMA for the planes. That's the US law, no US company or govt can bypass that.

Hence I find all this doom and gloom scenarios a bit confusing.

[Sanku]

EUMA still skews the terms to the detriment of the USA as supplier, not in its favor.

That is one way to look at it, however that assumes (and you will agree surely) that the Babu doing the deal remembers that at all points of time during the process. What the one time waiver does is that it brushes the whole thing under the carpet, so its unlikely that the Babu will remember it at all times. This because a tertiary factor in the deal for him when many more important things are vying for his attention (note I am not even doubting the capability/intent of the babu, only talking of simple human nature) to this if we throw in the current GoI obvious fawning love fest for all things US, it does give them a favor since
1) the pain is now gone
2) the document gives them a lot of lever over us to behave (even you consider a purely commercial transcation) in future.

We are beholden to a suppliers wish on whether they want to continue supplying to us. Very unusual in a world where its usually the supplier who signs all sort of things to assure that he will be true to his word in continuing to supply high quality services post the deal.

If an Indian defense purchase from US helps us improve on our prospects viz-a-viz these countries, then I am not in favor of making our ties to the USA a slave to our history and lack of trust. We should not lose sight of who the culprit neighbor, our primary target, is.

Surely, my only complain is the manner.

For example I was a fan of J18 and a bitter critic of 123. The devil is in details, unfortunately such a nuanced opposition is usually thrown in the dustbin since very few understand logic apart from "with us or against us" and even those who do use a deliberately dumbed down argument (such as labeling whiners or do you want US to go to China) of the same nature to bully through the harmful agenda and push it down the nations throat.

[amit]

I would supposes, that EUMA imposes conditions on India, even though they have been relaxed to some extent through the 3-year bargaining, whereas any purchases from other countries do not impose conditions. The Americans need the EUMA because of their Laws. Since other countries do not impose such conditions, wouldn't the other countries be better placed to compete in the Indian defense market. EUMA still skews the terms to the detriment of the USA as supplier, not in its favor. The Indian Military would be shopping in USA only if it feels that the price, quality, features, terms, ToT, etc offered in the American sale far outweighs the offers of the others as well as the conditionalities of EUMA.

That's the point Rajesh. The Armed Forces will take the final call on whether the EUMA hassle is out weighed by the quality and need for a particular piece of machinery. And EUMA is not the same as actually buying US made maal, I thought something this simple would be obvious.

No, USA has not been a friend and that is true. We have a severe trust-deficit with them.

In international relations there are no permanent enemies nor permanent friends only permanent interests. It would be very amateurish on our part that we would be only willing to deal with folks whom we trust and not on the basis of what we perceive to be in our best interests.

Do note that in many areas like climate control talks, WTO deliberations and other areas we coordinate with PRC to present a united front. Is it because we trust them? Heck no, it's because their objective and our coincide.

[amit]

2) the document gives them a lot of lever over us to behave (even you consider a purely commercial transcation) in future.

Sanku,

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you expand on how a omnibus EUMA would give the US leverage on what our Armed force want to buy or what we do with the equipment after we buy. Take the upcoming MRCA contract for example.

Thanks in advance.

[r_subramanian]

US defence deal: the inside story
I am not sure if this has been posted alreday. Report from The Telegraph

...
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.
...

US defence deal: the inside story

[Sanku]

2) the document gives them a lot of lever over us to behave (even you consider a purely commercial transcation) in future.

Sanku,

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you expand on how a omnibus EUMA would give the US leverage on what our Armed force want to buy. Take the upcoming MRCA contract for example.

Thanks in advance.

Amit there are two parts to that omnibus, and EUMA.

I have already talked about both before, and the short summary is omnibus thing is effective in moving something to the background and making it appear painless, when its pain and disruption (coupled with known and continuing US perfidy ) should be the first thing in mind.

As to EUMA, it gives the supplier and excuse to not follow through on post sale service terms and conditions. As such its very unusual way to buy. Usually the supplier is the one doing all the guaranteeing.

[Tanaji]

The question to ask then is why does India want US equipment when alternatives exist?

[Sanku]

The question to ask then is why does India want US equipment when alternatives exist?

You will not like my answer

What I am saying is that in a very clear and systematic manner decks are being cleared to be a major consumer of US defence industry. There is a clear pattern.

Where we err is that we are trying to logically justify the route from Indian interests --> Defence purchases --> need for EUMA.

The route from Buy US (as the main goal) --> EUMA/Transit agreements/1000 ship navy etc etc. is much easier to explain logically.

IMVHO we are reversing cause and effect here (of course a lot manufacturing consent types piskological games are being played to achieve it)

[RajeshA]

EUMA is perhaps a document USA uses to do intrusive inspections.

USA sells military hardware to either
- NATO partners, Japan, Australia
- other allies

With NATO partners there is a high level of trust, so the EUMA does not get used all that often, except when the country tries to sell its products to third countries, to which USA objects.

With other allies, it is mostly a case where it is a case of US protective umbrella as some Gulf countries, Jordan, Iraq, etc., in which case USA may be physically present to oversee the equipment, or it is countries to which US gives military aid, countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Colombia, etc., in which case also USA would be having stringent inspection regimes.

EUMA with India is a different caliber. It would be to a country, which is not a US ally, or a receiver of US military bhaksheesh, or under US protection. They are in it for the money and some strategic leverage. India has the capacity to dictate to the US a severe dilution of the terms of the End-User Monitoring criteria. And I believe we have also done it.

If USA opts for intrusive inspections which disturb the guardians of the country, then they will be receiving far few orders from India in the future. They have much more to lose from such an attitude towards India.

That is why it would have been appropriate to throw out Continental Airlines for their behavior towards President Kalam. A symbolic gesture here would go a long way in making the Americans wary of rubbing us the wrong way.

[amit]

I have already talked about both before, and the short summary is omnibus thing is effective in moving something to the background and making it appear painless, when its pain and disruption (coupled with known and continuing US perfidy ) should be the first thing in mind.

Fair enough. So you're saying that if a omibus or bespoke EUMA with defined contours and what's doable and not doable is there - for example one of the points being bandied about is that inspection will be done at a time and place of India's choosing - then it will be easier for US negotiators to hoodwink our babus during the negotiations and push through lemons without them knowing that?

Isn't the pain and disruption already going to be taken care of in the omnibus EUMA which will enumerate and turn into an international treaty just what can be done and what can't?

Suppose that India doesn't sign the omnibus EUMA.

However, one of the F planes wins the contract. What happens then? Are you sure that the EUMA that is then going to be signed for the planes will be much more acceptable to India than this omnibus EUMA? It would be interesting to know why. Please understand I'm just trying to understand your thought process, I feel maybe I'm missing something or there's a gap in my understanding of this issue.

As for US perfidy. Well there only one way to get around that. Just stop all connections, cooperation with the country.

As to EUMA, it gives the supplier and excuse to not follow through on post sale service terms and conditions. As such its very unusual way to buy. Usually the supplier is the one doing all the guaranteeing.

If we buy US equipment we will have to sign one EUMA or another. In view of that are you saying that it's a given that the US supplier will try invariably to not follow through with post sale service terms and conditions?

If that's your contention then are you implying that India shouldn't even consider US-made equipment? If you are that's a perfectly valid POV and I have no issues with that even though I don't endorse that.

But that would mean it's not about the omnibus EUMA at all but about the inadvisability of buying anything made in the US.

Finally I'm not too sure why you say EUMA is a very unusual way to buy military hardware. More than 80 countries globally buy US stuff via the EUMA; the US is the biggest or second biggest (I forget) arms supplier in the globe.

And India has already bought US equipment after signing individual EUMAs - for example the weapons locating radars. All that is being attempted - IMVVHO - is to sign a overarching EUMA instead of negotiating a fresh one for each and every equipment purchase in future. Do note that EUMA negotiations are known almost a year to complete.

JMT

[amit]

The question to ask then is why does India want US equipment when alternatives exist?

Tanaji,

That is the most important question and the proverbial woods in the famous quote about the woods and the trees.

There's still no concrete evidence that India is falling head over heels to get US equipment. And in my small understanding of what we've bought till now we've bought what best suits our needs. I don't see any indication that things will change in the future given that there's a high degree of distrust in the Armed Forces regarding the reliability of the US as a supplier.

As I see it EUMA is just one piece of tricky negotiation which is being taken care of with the text frozen to ensure no future hanky panky. This keeps our options open in future regarding whether we want to buy US equipment.

[Sanku]

If USA opts for intrusive inspections which disturb the guardians of the country, then they will be receiving far few orders from India in the future. They have much more to lose from such an attitude towards India.

That is why it would have been appropriate to throw out Continental Airlines for their behavior towards President Kalam. A symbolic gesture here would go a long way in making the Americans wary of rubbing us the wrong way.

I will make two predictions (one made before)

1) US is not even going to acknowledge Kalam's indignity, let alone do something about it. In fact the way it was done it is pretty clear that a message is being sent to a certain constituency in India (I think its obvious which constituency and which message)

2) The opinion of Indian Def forces is going to count zilch. As it is, there opinion does not count much hardly any even without an overarching "deal", they will be told to "behave" under the deal since it is in strategic domain that they cant understand.

-----------------

Again this line of thinking comes from confusing cause and effect -- a long time back a certain perceptive poster had said
"its about controlling and using Indian Mil stupid"
those words are being played out now as we see.

The British Empire very successfully ruled the world by making India its center piece and grew from a third rate land grabbing slave trader to Nation all based on
1) Extraction of Indian national resources
2) Using the Indian Mil manpower from the Opium wars to WWII

The similarity here is uncanny
1) For 1 -- we will pay huge amount of monies to US for junk third rate old technologies (including nuclear plant)
2) We will be a strategic ally -- except that all deal we sign will be heavily biased in their favor.

Dear Dr Singh has already made his views on how good was British rule for India to all but morons, his world view is pretty clear.

Remember all it takes in ONE Mir Jaffar and some Jagat Seth.

-------------------

However coming to the positive side, Brihspati has already did his take on the above (at his higher level of abstraction of course) on other threads, and predicts how the above attempt may be good for India (through completely unintended consequences) -- there in lies hopes of people like me.

[amit]

Rajesh,

As usual a good post (your last one).

However, I would like to point out that countries sell arms only to allies and partners, never to enemies.

That's as much true for the US as it is for Russia, France and what have you. One reason that despite the prospect of $$$$$$ the French don't - as yet - sell maal to China.

[amit]

Sanku,

Your last post was very educative - for me at least.

So it's all about the US' "evil intentions" and not just the EUMA text and such.

Well you're entitled to your POV.

Cheers!

[Sanku]

However, one of the F planes wins the contract. What happens then? Are you sure that the EUMA that is then going to be signed for the planes will be much more acceptable to India than this omnibus EUMA?

Two things -- one the fact that EUMA hanging over the head like a disruptive sword will weaken the negoting stand of US companies. If I was a babu I would say "See we want to buy from you onleee, but so expensive no and then you will also spend one year on the EUM thingy, who knows what will happen haan, be flexible please no"

This card is no longer there.

As for US perfidy. Well there only one way to get around that. Just stop all connections, cooperation with the country.

No strength respects strength, starting from mental strength, let the first thing be that okay we will buy Fs as along you promise us there will be no M clause. M clause != no deal sorry (of course dont tell the French that)

Lets see if they cant be persuaded to take the stand "oh our economy is in doldrums, and we need this biz, what the hell change the law"

It does not happen to be like what you say -- let them "show us the money" on how they can be trusted now.

Its not "we cant work with them since they have laws " -- let them come to equal terms.

I dont see why there is such difficulty in the concept of "we are not like any of those 80 piddily countries any more, we are Spaaartaaaaa (sorry Indiaaaaaa) we will deal on our terms" can not be done.

I just dont see the difficulty.

Finally one time purchase EUMA means we are taking something either truly critical or truly irrelevant so that we are willing to pay the price for EUMA -- why do it for everything haan?

[Sanku]

So it's all about the US' "evil intentions" and not just the EUMA text and such.

Sigh.... there's nothing Evil about their intentions. This is how big boys play and have always played. If it was not for Mrs G Soviet Union would have us running rings. It is a testimony to her strength that she could dance with bear and not get crushed in the hug. However everyone is not Mrs G.

We unnecessarily make it a morality show and get all emotional about such things, we are Indians all the world is not.

[Sanku]

However, I would like to point out that countries sell arms only to allies and partners, never to enemies.

Nothing of the sort, countries sell arms to all those whom they think they can safely sell without a problem to their national interests, that's the only minimum criteria (france selling to Pakistan)

Its not either friend-partner == 1 or enemy == 0. There is a whole range between friend partner and enemy.

[RajeshA]

What I am saying is that in a very clear and systematic manner decks are being cleared to be a major consumer of US defence industry. There is a clear pattern.

Where we err is that we are trying to logically justify the route from Indian interests --> Defence purchases --> need for EUMA.

The route from Buy US (as the main goal) --> EUMA/Transit agreements/1000 ship navy etc etc. is much easier to explain logically.

IMVHO we are reversing cause and effect here (of course a lot manufacturing consent types piskological games are being played to achieve it)

Sanku ji,

I too believe that India is on its way to making big-ticket arms acquisitions from USA. That however is a issue over strength of a particular lobby in Delhi. The American lobby in Delhi is at the moment very strong. I don't mind buying American weapons per se, iff the Indian Military says that a certain equipment would give them an edge over the enemy, and the Americans make the best offer.

I would mind, if the political intervention allows the Americans to offer on the one hand bribes, and on the other hand, they can get away from making the best offer, and still win the contract. That is what we have to be wary of. I am not convinced that that battle has to be fought from the shoulders of a standard-text EUMA arrangement, which if diluted sufficiently, becomes simply a technical agreement.

I believe your contention is that EUMA should be brought in the mix to compensate for the American influence over our politicians as an additional hurdle. If the whole polity has been compromised and infiltrated completely, then I am afraid an EUMA would hardly play the role of wall. That battle has to be fought elsewhere.

That battle is a battle for transparency and information and accountability. It is a battle which might be of some interest to some of our comrades from Bengal and Kerala . It is also a battle for opinions which will be fought in the digital cloud, on the Internet, a battle you are waging very admirably, if I may add.

[Sanku]

That battle is a battle for transparency and information and accountability. It is a battle which might be of some interest to some of our comrades from Bengal and Kerala. It is also a battle for opinions which will be fought in the digital cloud, on the Internet, a battle you are waging very admirably, if I may add.

Thank you Sir, again we are largely in agreement, with the caveat that I agree that a EUM is not the war per se, but certainly a battle (or a move if not a battle if that is what you prefer) what the EUM signing tells me is that yet another picket has fallen.

So while EUM does not make us lose the war (to which I have already agreed to) we are certainly no the way towards it if some other victories dont come our way so to say.

[amit]

No strength respects strength, starting from mental strength, let the first thing be that okay we will buy Fs as along you promise us there will be no M clause. M clause != no deal sorry (of course dont tell the French that)

Lets see if they cant be persuaded to take the stand "oh our economy is in doldrums, and we need this biz, what the hell change the law"

It does not happen to be like what you say -- let them "show us the money" on how they can be trusted now.

And you are 400 per cent sure that all this future US arms twisting by India to extract a best possible deal hasn't already happened?

I thought it was mighty odd that no less a person than Madam Clinton came to negotiate the EUMA rather than some State Department official or some General.

I found it quite interesting that just before the MRCA flight testing phase is about to being, the No3 in the US government and it's most visible face after Mr O was in India to negotiate a EUMA for some defence purchases?

Is this normal?

Finally one time purchase EUMA means we are taking something either truly critical or truly irrelevant so that we are willing to pay the price for EUMA -- why do it for everything haan?

My apologies but I really don't get what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying the once we have a EUMA, then every single defence purchase will go the US?

My understanding is that an omnibus EUMA gives us the option of future purchase with same terms and conditions. It doesn't imply definite future purchases. Of course please correct me if my assumption is wrong here.

Finally the bolded portion in your quote. That's quite a spectrum you know, from critical to irrelevant. Somehow it seems appropriate.

Cheers!

[amit]

We unnecessarily make it a morality show and get all emotional about such things, we are Indians all the world is not.

I agree with you Sanku. I'm seeing plenty of both - Moral posturing as well as overflow of emotion!

[RajeshA]

Thank you Sir, again we are largely in agreement

No need for Sir, Sanku ji, I am small fish in a pond with large whales.