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

[somnath]

^^^The bugbear of American arm twisting is old - delightfully best caputured by Minoo Masani going around with an "I am a CIA agent" placard around his neck - in the '70s..

But it completely misses the strategic imperative for India...In the foreseeable future, we are not going to come into a fundamental strategic conflict with the US - our strategic agenda is for Asia, and there it will clash with China. We will be , in years to come, constantly jostling for space in every imaginable sphere with China..

One (of the many) areas we can exploit a comparative advanatgae would be access to US military technology..US spends more money than the rest of the world put together on its MIC..Access to American technology on carefully chosen areas will fundamentally alter the Indo-Chinese military equation..

Arm twisting? Russian admirals talking of absorbing Nerpa in the Russian Navy when IN howls about the delays and escalation in Gorshkov - arm twisting? The French deliver M2K add ons with non-std TACAN, and force us to take delivery - arm twisting?

International relations are a fluid regime of constantly changing equations - the bigger picture is not of tactical differences but of a view of the world through our prism..And that view IMHO for India is of a dominant power in Asia, favourably aligned with the Western world, not allied to it, and carving out its own spehere of influence in the Asian ladnscape at the expense of China..

EUVA/MA is going to be a minor bureaucratic point in our relatiobship with the US, given the immense cross-linkages..

the US is building two nuclear parks in India - US acts too funny on spares supply, we can act funny on power supply agreemnts from these nuclear plants - Westinghouse and GE will be our lobbyist then..Its already happening (GE was a prime lobbyist for us in the nuke deal)...WE underestimate ourselves when we talk of someone selling us short...We are too big, too important to the world, including the US...

[Sanku]

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?

400% no but strongly suspect it to be true, trust deficit again (this time on MMS) based on bitter experience of J18 != 123.

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?

No but in no way takes away any of my concerns, probably adds to it.

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

No but what I am saying is that we should deal with US at the current levels (including EUMA) for either totally critical systems or for completely irrelevant ones. Only on the extreme ends of the spectrum if you will.

Post EUMA I see the gates being opened for other items within the spectrum, which to my mind should not be done.

Again EUMA does not force a purchase.
But a coming spate of purchase would definitely need a EUMA done in advance or it will be impractical (unless US relented)

So to me its a indication of a coming spate of purchases, starting with MRCA.

[Philip]

It was not Minoo Masani but the late Piloo Mody who wore that CIA badge! That caused quite a stir in parliament with Mrs.G. not amused.He was a legend in his lifetime with his sense of humour as large as his frame.These days the house have none with the sense of homour of the oldies long lost.

This is the US's take on "Sell-out-Singh" and his capitualtion.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/euma- ... us/493086/

EUMA brings India into nuclear non-proliferation mainstream: US

Clinton helped Obama rope in India as potential ally: Report
N-deal opens pathways for partnership on non-proliferation: US

US has hailed the defence end user monitoring agreement with India as a "landmark" pact, saying this could strengthen the global non-proliferation efforts and brings New Delhi into the mainstream of the regime. "We believe that this agreement between the US and India is important in our overall global non-proliferation efforts," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters on Thursday. "It is a very significant agreement. We are very proud," he said.

EUMA was finalised during the recent visit to India by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "End user means is basically making sure that material once it is delivered does not go to any other party unless there is some, sort of, agreement by the US," Wood said. "We believe that this agreement brought India into the nuclear non-proliferation mainstream. It is a landmark event," he said.

Asked how the US would carry out the verification, Wood said: "I am not going to get into the details. Those types of issues will be worked out between the two sides and in consultation with the IAEA and other players".

PS:So the aim was to fool India into adhereing to the NPT by deception!
Old saying........
"No fool like an old fool"

[Sanku]

But it completely misses the strategic imperative for India...In the foreseeable future, we are not going to come into a fundamental strategic conflict with the US

We already are in strategic conflict with US, on a whole range of issue if not completely as a nation per se I thought that every BRFite was by now taught the contours of the great game, please refer to some threads like US perfidy and the great game etc.

The starting premise itself is flawed.

---------

Secondly I see that you are still starting with some fundamental truths such as "We HAVE to buy plants from outside", I think we SHOULD not. I dont think we need US techonology to fundamentally alter the balance vis a vis China either, its not a imperative, but only one amongst many options which should be dealt with at OUR terms.

I think the gulf between our POV on this is too great frankly.

-----------

The "Americans are coming" has been true for a while, it was just that Mrs G masterfully balanced it with the equal the "commies are coming" fear in the McCarthised US mindset

[amit]

No but what I am saying is that we should deal with US at the current levels (including EUMA) for either totally critical systems or for completely irrelevant ones. Only on the extreme ends of the spectrum if you will.

Post EUMA I see the gates being opened for other items within the spectrum, which to my mind should not be done.

Again EUMA does not force a purchase.
But a coming spate of purchase would definitely need a EUMA done in advance or it will be impractical (unless US relented)

So to me its a indication of a coming spate of purchases, starting with MRCA.

So it all boils down to this: Don't buy US equipment!

As I've said before that's a perfectly acceptable POV - if I'm not mistaken there's a number of folks on BRF who subscribe to that. And, again, as I said before I respect this POV even though I don't endorse it.

However, that makes all this peice meal EUMA vs omnibus/bespoke EUMA discussions just an academic and pointless exercise.

This is precisely what I wanted to find out.

Thanks.

[Sanku]

No but what I am saying is that we should deal with US at the current levels (including EUMA) for either totally critical systems or for completely irrelevant ones. Only on the extreme ends of the spectrum if you will..

So it all boils down to this: Don't buy US equipment!

Amit, I am continually amazed at your ability to read "IMLI" when "AAM" is clearly written in BOLD and LARGE FONTS

Where did I remotely say it boils down to this -- I was hoping you would do better than "with us or against us" logic!!

[RajeshA]

the US is building two nuclear parks in India - US acts too funny on spares supply, we can act funny on power supply agreements from these nuclear plants

somnath ji,
would you please elaborate this a bit more!

• Who would be owning these American supplied plants?
• Who would be operating them?
• Who will be party to these "power supply agreements"?
• Who and How could one of the parties act "funny" which could be considered to be in India's favor?

[bart]

I think the EUM can be a good excuse to shaft the US weapons peddlers. Basically stuff that is available ONLY from US, we would have to sign the EUM anyway so it doesn't matter. For stuff like MRCA where we have other perfectly good vendors, keep the khans in the race for price purposes and then buy something else with the excuse:

"Ruled out as EUM terms were too restrictive".

After all it was they who hurried and forced this EUM on to us.

Of course, one cannot count on our govt to do anything Chanakian like that.

[amit]

So to me its a indication of a coming spate of purchases, starting with MRCA.

So you are trying to say that with a omnibus EUMA there will be spate of purchases from the US starting with the MRCA but without the omibus agreement there will not be a spate of US arms purchases?

Hmm, I wonder how that works. One way I can see that happen is if we assume the Armed Forces will have no say in what is purchased and everything will be rammed down their throat.

If that's what you're trying to say, I wonder what indications you have seen that such a course of action is about to be undertaken?

Or is it the very fact that the omibus EUMA is being negotiated in Exhibit No1 for this premise?

[Sanku]

Of course, one cannot count on our govt to do anything Chanakian like that.

That being the actual nub of the matter. Particularly with the dear leader in the Palqui

[somnath]

Phillip, thanks for the correction! It was Piloo Mody indeed..And the US spokesman is doing the same media selling that Indian spokesmen have to - else what has EUMA got to do with NPT? Apples and watermelons!

Sanku, nothing happnes exclusively on anyone's "own trms"...Not in great power interactions in any case..The US does not get its own way with us on a range of issues(for example, they have been asking for greater foreign equity in insurance for 15 years now - from Frank Wisner's time - they havent got their way..they dont go into a pique and start banishing Indian s/w compnies from getting American contracts)..

With EUMA, we are buying an option - our "takeaway" is serious American competition to lick all other suppliers into better shape..

Fundamental premise of being in strategic conflict with the US is quite preposterous for today's India - no country influences us with its ideals and aspirations more than the US...Today's generation is not the "dur hato yeh dunuiyawalon" generation - we have fundamental strategic conflict with China, and tactical convergences (like on climate change), opposite with the US...

Its a view shared by most Indians - the Pew survey during Bush's tenor showed India as the only country with a positive view of the US....Most fo the country has greater confidence in ourselves than some of our politicians (and some bloggers!)..

[amit]

I think the EUM can be a good excuse to shaft the US weapons peddlers. Basically stuff that is available ONLY from US, we would have to sign the EUM anyway so it doesn't matter. For stuff like MRCA where we have other perfectly good vendors, keep the khans in the race for price purposes and then buy something else with the excuse:

"Ruled out as EUM terms were too restrictive".

After all it was they who hurried and forced this EUM on to us.

Of course, one cannot count on our govt to do anything Chanakian like that.

Bart ji,

Those who have a bit more faith in the Indian establishment (including the government, babus, Opposition etc) feel that's exactly what India is trying to do with the EUMA.

An agreement to tell the Khans that see we are being very fair to you.

Then when the real negotiations take place our chai biskoot loving babus will use that to first shaft the non-US vendors with the fear that we have a clause to do business with the US and then tell the US Khans that you better give us a better deal since your EUMA is such a pain in the ass that the other vendors look more promising.

Of course this presupposes that Mir Jaffar types are not running loose in the corridors of power in Delhi.

And if they are, hell were screwed anyway aren't we? Might as well pack up and go home.

JMT

[Sanku]

Hmm, I wonder how that works. One way I can see that happen is if we assume the Armed Forces will have no say in what is purchased and everything will be rammed down their throat.

If that's what you're trying to say, I wonder what indications you have seen that such a course of action is about to be undertaken?

Or is it the very fact that the omibus EUMA is being negotiated in Exhibit No1 for this premise?

It is not Exhibit No 1 and onlee in the premise but certainly ONE of the IMPORTANT exhibits.

The other exhibits are
1) Instead of just handing over the extra Mirages the IAF wanted 8 years back to keep the pot boiling on MRCA at the cost of depleting strength etc. with timing of MRCA test and other moves mysteriously coinciding.
2) Sharm e Sheik agreement completely overruling the establishment (listen to them howl)
3) Nuke deal armtwising (By Sajay Baru et al to Kakodkar)
4) The already much limited say that Indian defence forces have in the purchases
5) .Surprising cancellation of Helicopter tests when the US helicopter did not qualify and reopening the box on that under some extraordinary ridiculous excuse.

The list is long but I trust 5 + 1 would convince any one who is open minded.

[somnath]

the US is building two nuclear parks in India - US acts too funny on spares supply, we can act funny on power supply agreements from these nuclear plants

somnath ji,
would you please elaborate this a bit more!

• Who would be owning these American supplied plants?
• Who would be operating them?
• Who will be party to these "power supply agreements"?
• Who and How could one of the parties act "funny" which could be considered to be in India's favor?

Ownership will eventually be with JVs - with the American company as a JV partner with Indian companies..A change in regulations can render the equity stake irrelevant (remember the Dabhol plant - GE went through hoops to recover its investment once we denounced the PPA itsself), or more drastic, just nationalise the whole thing (bank style)...GE or Westinghouse would sudedenly see a few billion dollars go up in nuclear smoke!

Of course, when the legislation to allow foreign equity in nuke power is passed, people will cry "sellout!!

[amit]

It is not Exhibit No 1 and onlee in the premise but certainly ONE of the IMPORTANT exhibits.

The other exhibits are
1) Instead of just handing over the extra Mirages the IAF wanted 8 years back to keep the pot boiling on MRCA at the cost of depleting strength etc. with timing of MRCA test and other moves mysteriously coinciding.
2) Sharm e Sheik agreement completely overruling the establishment (listen to them howl)
3) Nuke deal armtwising (By Sajay Baru et al to Kakodkar)
4) The already much limited say that Indian defence forces have in the purchases
5) .Surprising cancellation of Helicopter tests when the US helicopter did not qualify and reopening the box on that under some extraordinary ridiculous excuse.

The list is long but I trust 5 + 1 would convince any one who is open minded.

I sure it will convince some folks Sanku, especially your first point. Afterall a "grand conspiracy" which started 8 years ago is bound to interest many folks.

Your No3 point is also interesting. I'm sure Kakodkar's arms are still sore.

However, thank you for patiently explaining your stand today over the past few pages of this thread.

After my last interaction with you on this thread (unfortunately a rather sharp one) I really had some second thoughts on whether I was misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

Now it's crystal clear.

Thank you Sir.

[Sanku]

Sanku, nothing happnes exclusively on anyone's "own trms"...Not in great power interactions in any case..

No Sirjee I dont ascribe to this logic, there are red lines we do not cross, again when you compare a civil merchant deal with a mil strat one, I know of the gaping chasm.

Also your definition of US not getting its own terms means -- oh look they haven't completely taken over Indian market yet, there are portions closed to them.

To me an example would be giving up on farm subsidy.

I am sorry your threshold for what constitutes Indian intrests is way way too low.

Reminds me of another emergency quote (about the press) "when asked to bend, they crawled"

Fundamental premise of being in strategic conflict with the US is quite preposterous for today's India - no country influences us with its ideals and aspirations more than the US...Today's generation is not the "dur hato yeh dunuiyawalon" generation - we have fundamental strategic conflict with China, and tactical convergences (like on climate change), opposite with the US...

Again a fundamental flaw and to my mind an untruth, the fact that Indian modern generation are open to US ideas and softpower does not mean that we are not in strategic conflict. Nor does it mean that an avg Indian is intelligent to understand it.

So total cooking of books with that argument. Totally WKK logic -- "Pakis watch Indian films they are like us onlee"

Its a view shared by most Indians - the Pew survey during Bush's tenor showed India as the only country with a positive view of the US....Most fo the country has greater confidence in ourselves than some of our politicians (and some bloggers!)..

Again I am glad that Indians have a positive view on US. I would be one of those for example. I still dont see as to how that means we should drop our pants every time they come visiting though.

[Sanku]

The list is long but I trust 5 + 1 would convince any one who is open minded.

Now it's crystal clear.

Thank you Sir.

I know Amit I know. That why I had already put that in my post. I know you dont worry.

[Sanku]

[ just nationalise the whole thing (bank style)...GE or Westinghouse would sudedenly see a few billion dollars go up in nuclear smoke!

A Government which cant even get its way on paper (which every one agrees doesnt matter much because its paper) will nationalize Nuke plants when time comes!!

I dont jog everyday but when time comes I am planning on cracking the Mumbai marathon.

[amit]

The list is long but I trust 5 + 1 would convince any one who is open minded.
Now it's crystal clear.

Thank you Sir.

I know Amit I know. That why I had already put that in my post. I know you dont worry.

Sanku,

I'm certainly not open minded like you. I don't like vacuum up there where it matters.

Let's just say your explanations stemming from your "open minded" state are very entertaining.

But let me leave you the stage.

[Sanku]

But let me leave you the stage.

Werent you supposed to have left about three times already? Dont let me keep you my dear chap, I am sure you have pressing matters to attend to.

[RajeshA]

Fundamental premise of being in strategic conflict with the US is quite preposterous for today's India - no country influences us with its ideals and aspirations more than the US...Today's generation is not the "dur hato yeh dunuiyawalon" generation - we have fundamental strategic conflict with China, and tactical convergences (like on climate change), opposite with the US...

As far as ideals and aspirations are concerned, there is plentiful of that within Indians themselves, even without the influence.

Contempt for "dur hato yeh dunuiyawalon" slogan seems to have become extremely useful tool in the rhetorical toolbox of the think-tank circuit!

Its a view shared by most Indians - the Pew survey during Bush's tenor showed India as the only country with a positive view of the US....Most of the country has greater confidence in ourselves than some of our politicians (and some bloggers!)..

True, Indians have ever increasing confidence in themselves.

As for the Pew Global Survey of 2005 where
- 71% Indians have a favorable view of United States, right behind US with 83%;
- 54% Indians had confidence in George W. Bush, right behind US with 62%;
- 63% Indians opined that US Foreign Policy takes consideration of others, right behind US with 67%;
- 45% Indians thought the world was a safer place without Saddam, right behind US with 49% (thus almost approving of US war against Iraq)

it must also be admitted that
- 81% Indians wanted that another power rivaled USA, right behind France with 85% and Jordan with 82%.

so if so many Indians think that USA needs a leash around its neck, it's probably because we are not convinced that USA can be trusted with unchallenged power. Does that say something about India's trust-deficit with USA?

So we ought to be very watchful in our relations with Americans, and all agreements we enter into with USA, should be thoroughly scrutinized.

Indians do not have a confidence deficit with USA, simply trust-deficit; not an insurmountable impediment for doing business, but there nevertheless.

[amit]

so if so many Indians think that USA needs a leash around its neck, it's probably because we are not convinced that USA can be trusted with unchallenged power. Does that say something about India's trust-deficit with USA?

So we ought to be very watchful in our relations with Americans, and all agreements we enter into with USA, should be thoroughly scrutinized.

Indians do not have a confidence deficit with USA, simply trust-deficit; not an insurmountable impediment, but there nevertheless.

Rajesh,

All these points are very true and I for one agree to them.

Trust deficit as far as the US is concerned is definitely something to be taken very seriously. And that's why I'm a bit mystified as to why an omibus EUMA is considered such a No, No.

You see if we can get terms with which we are OK with - and this is very important - into an EUMA which will determine all future potential military transactions with the US, why is that so wrong, as long as we do hardball negotiations?

And this is the time to get them to bend because I'm sure LM and Boeing are quite aware that unless they can get the EUMA out of the way they are effectively out of the MRCA race, hence they'll pull the necessary levers in the US govt. Do note that the competition is supposed to start within a few months and this is for the first time the IAF will really be able to assess just what technologies are on offer as opposed to paper specs.

If we are to have a piece meal approach to EUMA at some future date when we desperately need a piece of equipment due to some emergency or the other then the US will be in a position to ram through a more intrusive EUMA which under normal circumstances we wouldn't agree to.

The best possible option of course is to either produce at home or buy from somewhere else. But given the huge technological lead the US enjoys over everyone else that may not be possible for all cases.

It's this future uncertainty which I think an omnibus EUMA which cannot be arbitrarily changed by future US govts will solve.

This is my reading, of course I could be wrong.

[amit]

Werent you supposed to have left about three times already? Dont let me keep you my dear chap, I am sure you have pressing matters to attend to.

Sanku,

You misunderstood. I meant I'll not waste bandwidth trying to engage you.

Cheers!

[Sanku]

And this is the time to get them to bend

Absolutely when else can they get a govt which has Babu's which make "drafting errors" in International Joint declarations with the murderer of their people.

[Sanku]

And this is the time to get them to bend because I'm sure LM and Boeing are quite aware that unless they can get the EUMA out of the way they are effectively out of the MRCA race,

Not true, IAF should have first evaluated the plane decided if it was worth EUM and then moved into negotiations perhaps parallel negotiations with two parties.

If we are to have a piece meal approach to EUMA at some future date when we desperately need a piece of equipment due to some emergency or the other then the US will be in a position to ram through a more intrusive EUMA which under normal circumstances we wouldn't agree to.

Sorry will not sell is an option they still always have when we are desperate. When we give away so much when we are not desperate I am not under any illusions as to what we will give away later.

Sort of like, let me run away now, so I dont need to run later, who says you wont be chased though?

But given the huge technological lead the US enjoys over everyone else that may not be possible for all cases.

I dont think a lot of us (in the techonology biz no less) think that US enjoys a huge lead over anyone. A little yes. Huge no. Insurmountable or critical? Certainly not, esp the kind thats on offer.

It's this future uncertainty which I think an omnibus EUMA which cannot be arbitrarily changed by future US govts will solve.

No Sir why will they change it arbitrarily? They anyway have what they want don't they, this is to meet their requirement in the first place onlee?

Of course when their requirements change and if Indians continue displaying the same spine that they have over last few years, I am sure we will happy to lend them the pen.

[RajeshA]

so if so many Indians think that USA needs a leash around its neck, it's probably because we are not convinced that USA can be trusted with unchallenged power. Does that say something about India's trust-deficit with USA?

So we ought to be very watchful in our relations with Americans, and all agreements we enter into with USA, should be thoroughly scrutinized.

Indians do not have a confidence deficit with USA, simply trust-deficit; not an insurmountable impediment, but there nevertheless.

Rajesh,

All these points are very true and I for one agree to them.

Trust deficit as far as the US is concerned is definitely something to be taken very seriously. And that's why I'm a bit mystified as to why an omibus EUMA is considered such a No, No.

You see if we can get terms with which we are OK with - and this is very important - into an EUMA which will determine all future potential military transactions with the US, why is that so wrong, as long as we do hardball negotiations?

And this is the time to get them to bend because I'm sure LM and Boeing are quite aware that unless they can get the EUMA out of the way they are effectively out of the MRCA race, hence they'll pull the necessary levers in the US govt. Do note that the competition is supposed to start within a few months and this is for the first time the IAF will really be able to assess just what technologies are on offer as opposed to paper specs.

If we are to have a piece meal approach to EUMA at some future date when we desperately need a piece of equipment due to some emergency or the other then the US will be in a position to ram through a more intrusive EUMA which under normal circumstances we wouldn't agree to.

The best possible option of course is to either produce at home or buy from somewhere else. But given the huge technological lead the US enjoys over everyone else that may not be possible for all cases.

It's this future uncertainty which I think an omnibus EUMA which cannot be arbitrarily changed by future US govts will solve.

This is my reading, of course I could be wrong.

Amit,
I too agree with your views on EUMA.

From the discussion on this thread my reading of the views of those against the EUMA, is that it has much more to do with the clout America has gathered at our highest political level, and that because of that clout, the acquisition of big-ticket items may not proceed by the rules, i.e.

- the supplier which offers India a product with the best quality, lowest price, most features, best terms, most Transfer of Technology and most trustworthy supplier relationship wins the contract.

People are suspicious that the political elite in India will interfere in the process of this determination and promote USA as the favored supplier.

Lack of an EUMA could have been a technical hurdle just big enough to tilt the balance again in the direction of a level playfield, sort of compensate for the wide-spread support of America in the political arena. I am of the opinion an absent EUMA cannot do the task what it is expected of it.

Other countries would have to lobby better in Delhi. Others would have to continue to question Government's actions and judgments. Only then would the Govt. be wary of public reaction to a step, it cannot justify. That is accountability.

JMTs

[shiv]

We Indians are "satyameva jayatists" by nature.

If unkil imposes some condition on us, our dharmic core demands that we respect that condition. And in respecting that condition we find ourselves disadvantaged and we protest the scheming US for not acknowledging our goodness and insisting on conditions. We cannot tell a straight lie, or contemplate telling a lie tomorrow - in the same way that Yudishthira was unable to tell a straight lie about Ashwatthama.

We must be above suspicion. The same streak that we must remain above suspicion coincidentally transcends this thread and spills over on to the hara kiri thread where our angst at having our fair name sullied knows no bounds. But I digress. With regard to technology sold by the US our attitude is "The agreement calls for inspection, and therefore if the US were to so much as whisper the words "inspe.." we are duty bound to stand at attention and instantly clear our names of any suspicion that may be raised by the US." Rama making sure Sita's name is clear - the agni pariksha.

Of course we will not change - our minds are too honorable to show or even contemplate deceit. But the question that comes to mind is what is the US view of things?

I mean OK. The US has these laws and agreements must be signed as per those laws, and as per those laws India must agree to submit to inspections. But what if some moron in the US should somehow "forget" that a particular India item needs to be inspected. Maybe he got a bit busy and all. What would happen to him? Would he get arrested drawn and quartered? Or would Lockheed Martin be shut down for endangering US security interests? Or would India be faxing the US 15 times a month "Item xyz due for inspection. Kaiga nuke plant fully open, ready and waiting for inspection of personnel radiation dosimeters and radiation resistant ball-pens"

Just curious...

[Tanaji]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090723/j ... 272199.jsp

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.”

Very interesting. If this report is true....

I personally think the MRCA is payback for the nuke deal. So, that means EUVA HAS to be signed.

[Dilbu]

Mr Antony, what's your agenda for India's defence?

[Katare]

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?

Arnab,

From the inside article story posted twice including in the last page of this thread...

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.”

[Lalmohan]

in all this hoo-haa, are we signing a standard EUM or a special Indianised EUM? surely all the other poodles have signed them too? even israel and japan? ultimately, is there a big deal here?

[ramana]

Yeah there is a big deal here. From US pov the EUM takes care of their concerns that the stuff is not being used for purposes other than it was acquired for and to have legal barriers for further transfers to third parties. From Indian POV these very rights could be used to inventory the matrieal and could have negative impact on security (locations of hardware which discloses order of battle etc). And US has not been an even handed power when it comes to the TSP. Recall sat images to TSP in Jan 2002 showing corps movement etc.

[Lalmohan]

ramana-ji, yes i am aware of that. however, can the US really truly prevent us from using something our way? can they stop the isrealis doing so?

[Virupaksha]

ramana-ji, yes i am aware of that. however, can the US really truly prevent us from using something our way? can they stop the isrealis doing so?

it is not really about "using", it is passing on that we are going to use "it" in "those" locations, i.e. order of battle.

about 'using', anyway we have to assume that we are not going to get any spares from the exact moment we need it.

[ramana]

ramana-ji, yes i am aware of that. however, can the US really truly prevent us from using something our way? can they stop the isrealis doing so?

lalmohan garu, It will be like the curse on Karna when he needs to use the stuff the most! So use codes could be disabled.

And Isreal cannot be a precedent for any other country due to the European atrocities during WWII.

[shiv]

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/DR/18 Chapter.pdf
END-USE MONITORING AND
THIRD-PARTY TRANSFERS

SUMMARY
To preserve American technological advantage, countries receiving weapons, and weapons
technology must agree to provide the same level of protection for the articles and information as would
the U.S. itself. This requirement applies whether a country receives material through commercial
channels or through a government-to-government mechanism. The DoS’s Blue Lantern program
applies to technologies acquired through direct commercial sales procedures, while the DoD’s Golden
Sentry applies to FMS transfers.

The U.S. policy goal for the end-use monitoring programs is preserving the technological
advantages enjoyed by U.S. military forces over potential adversaries by impeding access to militarily
significant items and technologies.

A country receiving weapons and weapons technology from the U.S. must agree to a variety of
controls. The release of materiel or data must be properly cleared within the DoS and DoD coordination
process. Delivery will be to the proper representative of the recipient country or organization which
must provide substantially the same degree of security protection the U.S. government (USG) would
provide for the articles or information received. The recipient guarantees that it will use the articles or
information for the intended purpose and will not transfer or change the end-use (including) disposal
of the articles without prior consent of the USG. In addition, the recipient must permit verification of
the security and end-use by representatives of the U.S.



The DoS program to conduct pre-license, pre-shipment/post-license, and post-shipment checks of defense articles and services transferred through direct commercial sales is called the Blue Lantern program. Blue Lantern end-use checks are conducted by U.S. mission personnel abroad or personnel from DoS’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to verify the destination and specific end- use and end-users of U.S. commercial defense exports and transfers. Blue Lantern cases are targeted based on potential risk, and are not randomly selected. These end-use checks encourage compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and have proven effective in addressing the growing problem of gray arms trade – the use of fraudulent export documentation or other techniques to acquire defense articles through legitimate channels for unauthorized end-users.

[shiv]

http://www.fas.org/asmp/resources/gover ... UMfy04.pdf

Although most commercial defense trade is legitimate, a small percentage of cases can fall prey to gray
arms manipulations. The goal of the Blue Lantern program is to prevent gray arms networks from
misleading our export control process to obtain military items and technologies. The roughly 500 Blue
Lantern checks conducted each year are the result of a targeted selection process to efficiently identify
transactions that are most vulnerable to this type of diversion or misuse. License applications and approvals
undergo review by Licensing and Compliance officers, who compare the details of the case with specified,
time-tested criteria to determine a transaction’s suitability for a Blue Lantern check. DDTC reviews about
60,000 transactions annually, and the knowledge and trend analysis derived from the 500 checks is used by
DDTC to better assess the national security concerns associated with the export of specific defense articles
controlled by the U.S. Munitions List.1

[shiv]

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/DR/18 Chapter.pdf

Responsibilities for the Conduct of the Golden Sentry End-Use Monitoring Programs
The responsibilities for the conduct of the Golden Sentry EUM program are found in the SAMM,
Chapter 8, paragraph C8.2.2 and Table C8.T2.
There are two levels of EUM to be conducted by the SAO and the recipient nation, routine and
enhanced. Routine EUM includes those actions by both the SAO and the partner nation government
as a part of the daily business of the host nation and routine visits by the SAO in its relations with
partner’s military activities. It is conducted on non-sensitive defense articles or services. They will be
able to certify end-use of equipment from personal observation in the course of other assigned duties
rather than making a special representation to the participating nation’s government.
Enhanced EUM (EEUM) are those actions required by the SAMM and other directives as specified
in the appropriate transfer documents for sensitive items which require greater physical security and
accountability. EEUM articles require actual inventories by the purchasing country and the SAO,
and, under certain circumstances, a compliance assessment visit by a Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA)-led team.

SAMM Section C8.3 defines the articles or services requiring additional controls on end-use and
the additional measures to be used. Below is the current list of items that require EEUM:
• Classified items
• Communication security equipment (COMSEC)
• Arms, ammunition and explosives (AA&E)
• Night vision devices (NVDs)
• STINGER/man portable air defense system (MANPADS) missiles and grip stocks
• JAVELIN missiles and command launch units
• Tube-launched optically-tracked, wire-guided (TOW II-B) missiles
• Advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) and air-intercept missile
(AIM-120)
• Category III missiles (stand-off land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM-ER),
and AIM-9X)
• Harpoon Block II missiles
• Precision guided missiles, e.g., cruise missiles (Tomahawk and Harpoon variants, and
the family of joint munitions e.g., JDAM and JSOW)
• Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)
• SLAM-ER

[shiv]

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/hous ... hor5681317

BLUE LANTERN Checks
The People's Republic of China does not allow the conduct of BLUE LANTERN checks, the State Department's equivalent of Commerce's pre-license checks and post-shipment verification.
Lowell says that the State Department is not concerned for two reasons:
· First, most items that State has approved for export to the PRC are commercial communications satellites for launch in the PRC
· Second, State licenses the export of U.S. munitions directly to the military of other countries, and does not have the same requirement as Commerce to check on end users and end uses in order to avoid diversions from civil to military applications152
Lowell says that only a small number of State Department licenses are reviewed for civilian end users, such as private security forces. On the other hand, Lowell says, the State Department does use BLUE LANTERN checks to detect diversions of its approved exports.
The State Department also uses BLUE LANTERN end-use checks to reduce brokering and to check on dealers on its Watch List. To obtain a BLUE LANTERN check, the State Department cables the Embassy to check out the end user, and the Embassy cables back with details on the check.153

[somnath]

We Indians are "satyameva jayatists" by nature.

If unkil imposes some condition on us, our dharmic core demands that we respect that condition. And in respecting that condition we find ourselves disadvantaged and we protest the scheming US for not acknowledging our goodness and insisting on conditions. We cannot tell a straight lie, or contemplate telling a lie tomorrow - in the same way that Yudishthira was unable to tell a straight lie about Ashwatthama.

We must be above suspicion. The same streak that we must remain above suspicion coincidentally transcends this thread and spills over on to the hara kiri thread where our angst at having our fair name sullied knows no bounds. But I digress. With regard to technology sold by the US our attitude is "The agreement calls for inspection, and therefore if the US were to so much as whisper the words "inspe.." we are duty bound to stand at attention and instantly clear our names of any suspicion that may be raised by the US." Rama making sure Sita's name is clear - the agni pariksha.

Of course we will not change - our minds are too honorable to show or even contemplate deceit. But the question that comes to mind is what is the US view of things?

I mean OK. The US has these laws and agreements must be signed as per those laws, and as per those laws India must agree to submit to inspections. But what if some moron in the US should somehow "forget" that a particular India item needs to be inspected. Maybe he got a bit busy and all. What would happen to him? Would he get arrested drawn and quartered? Or would Lockheed Martin be shut down for endangering US security interests? Or would India be faxing the US 15 times a month "Item xyz due for inspection. Kaiga nuke plant fully open, ready and waiting for inspection of personnel radiation dosimeters and radiation resistant ball-pens"

Just curious...

Plain wrong..When required, we can be as bone headed about our national interests as anyone else..Think the use of spent fuel from the Tarapur reactors..Think repeated assurances about nuke testing by many members of the Vajpayee govt in 1998...To think that we are unable to protect our interests - one just has to look into our dealings at WTO negotiations, Climate change talks, CTBT - we do it as well as anyone else..None other than Henry Kissinger, no sufferer of fools, had nothing but grudging admiration for the negotiating position of Indians on critical matters...

[ just nationalise the whole thing (bank style)...GE or Westinghouse would sudedenly see a few billion dollars go up in nuclear smoke!

A Government which cant even get its way on paper (which every one agrees doesnt matter much because its paper) will nationalize Nuke plants when time comes!!

I dont jog everyday but when time comes I am planning on cracking the Mumbai marathon.

Well, obviously you have no idea on what we did to GE over Dabhol - and that was only a matter of a piqued government getting back at the company for purely political reasons...GE had to go through years, nay decades of hoops, and finally agreed to keep the money within India before it got its share of equity back (just equity, after 15 years - no escalation, no compensation)..(We did the same to Enron on that case, but no one went through the hoops as it was already bankrupt).

Again a fundamental flaw and to my mind an untruth, the fact that Indian modern generation are open to US ideas and softpower does not mean that we are not in strategic conflict. Nor does it mean that an avg Indian is intelligent to understand it.

You tend to mistake tactical differences as strategic chasms..Strategic conflicts happen between powers with a fundamentally different worldview and life and objectives...Between us and the US (no pun!) there is no fundamental difference in our oulook to life...there are obviosuly differences in terms of immediate objectives..

I find allusions of "we are selling out" quite strange..Despite the nuke deal, there has not been one deal fomralised yet with the US on the nuclear fornt - while France, Russia, Kazakhstan have walked away with the contracts - who is the beneficiary? The EUM will get LM/Boeing to put their best feet forward in the MRCA contract - will force the French to offer a darn better deal on the Rafale...Who wins?

RajeshA, there should be scepticism in all dealing on international affairs (what you terms as trust deficit)..Doesnt mean that every give-and-take is an example of sellout...As I keep reiterating, the economic reforms in 1991 were also termed as sellout - dont think there is any doubt about who has benefited most from it (I am part of the Indian generation that did, and I cant ever forget that)..

The EUM takes the entire "key person" risk out of arms negotiation with the US - so it wont matter if the interlocutor is a Madeleine Albright or Hillary Clinton - the End User conditions are a constant...It actually is a HUGE help to our decision making matrix while a final call is being taken..