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

[Sanku]

Somnath why are you posting irrelvant stuff?

The question was not whether Russians and their customers are happy with after sales support (and stratfor? Please)

Sanku wrote:
Are you saying that Russians and French do not have a software system to track and document supply chain that they use routinely?

BC articles has the clear links to offending clauses, please do some homework and pick up one other non US agreement and show us those clauses exist.

Stratfors opinion on how good or bad is the Russian support does not answer that. Plus startfor is a known psy-ops center for West -- note it has not a single example of how Russian after sales is worse than that of the west.

Just a assertion that it is -- like yours.

A belief system != truth.

[somnath]

^^^ BC does not quote any clauses from the EUMA, for the simple reason that the document is not public..Everyone is simply quoting from general EUMA documets available in open source and leaks from the govt, besides speculation..

about Russian export controls:

some info:

a) obtaining an import certificate, a delivery confirmation certificate, and an end-user certificate;

b) transferring a dual-use item from one enterprise to another within the territory of the Russian Federation;

c) re-exporting a dual-use item to a third country;
d) verifying that a Russian importer is using a dual-use item for the declared purpose;

e) monitoring that a foreign importer is using a dual-use item, imported from the Russian Federation, for the declared purpose. Verification is performed by a commission made up of a representative of the enterprise that is the exporter, a representative of the enterprise that is the manufacturer, the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Customs Committee, and the Ministry of Security. If a violation is found, that importer is entered onto a list (maintained by the MFER) of unreliable foreign firms to which the export of dual-use items is prohibited.

If you go through the full list of things listed there, you will find enough caveats, which is what I would expect..American laws might be stricter, but as I say ad nauseam, thats a boundary condition in an option purchase (read Hull among others in case you dont understand what Options and Futures are), not an obligation!

about the question of whether anyone (Russia, France or anyone) allows its platforms to be serviced/upgraded without its consent in any place other than their own - even if you are a rank ignoramus on the dynamics of international arms trade, just a cursory reading of Econ 101 (workings of monopolies and oligopolies) will give you the answer..

finally, Startfor is psyops! Maybe, a lot of professionals pay top dollar to George Friedman for his psyops I might say - including my organisation!!!

[Sanku]

^^^ BC does not quote any clauses from the EUMA, for the simple reason that the document is not public..Everyone is simply quoting from general EUMA documets available in open source and leaks from the govt, besides speculation..

Yes, it is correct, no one has seen what India will sign, it is speculation, just like there was speculation on Hyde act (which all turned out right), also there is yet no reason to believe that it will not be like 90% of EUMs that US has, all on their websites barring trivial differences.

about Russian export controls:

some info:

You are using the Nuclear paragraph for dual use weapons as well as WMD, etc this has no bearing on the EUM in general.

Horrible comparison.

[Sanku]

Look boss, even a Western article does not say that Russian and Americans have similar conditions.

Please spare us the spin Somnath, and take your head out of the sand and stop being in denial

An EUM Bellwether? India/US Arms Deals Faced Crunch Over Conditions

[somnath]

Sanku, its a complete waste of time trying to discuss with you, which is what I was trying to do all this while..Ignoring data to cling on to semantics is no substitute for substantive discussion..For example, I neve said Russian and Americans have similar conditions....Just that all countries have some sort of regimes...

But anyways, please get yourself educated about the basics (I have given you some sources) - you will be in a better position to understadn and discuss the nuances of high politics and deal making...

[Sanku]

Just that all countries have some sort of regimes...

Wow, so since we have to sign some agreement with everyone EUMA is also ok. By the same logic any agreement is ok.

Very substantial.

Exactly at the level of Shri Tharrors views on the Joint statement at S e S.

But anyways, please get yourself educated about the basics (I have given you some sources) - you will be in a better position to understadn and discuss the nuances of high politics and deal making...

I am sorry Somanth, the only way to defeat spin is to parse the details. Which according to you is semantics.

As far as you are concerned, the only thing I admire about you is the chutzpa of yours. Despite being totally ignorant of matters technical and diplomatic. It never stops you from quoting from economic books of completely unrelated nature and comparing windows software contracts with defense purchases.

On top of that you have the temerity to ask others to learn -- very very funny.

[rkirankr]

Look boss, even a Western article does not say that Russian and Americans have similar conditions.

Please spare us the spin Somnath, and take your head out of the sand and stop being in denial

An EUM Bellwether? India/US Arms Deals Faced Crunch Over Conditions

From the above link

Britain recently forbade Indonesia from using its Scorpion light tanks against a separatist insurgency in Aceh, which caused Indonesia to turn toward Russia as a future supplier

.
This is exactly the kind of the conditions which India should be wary of. Ofcourse the it would not be specific but very vaguely drafted in the agreement.
So if there is another Op sarp vinash kind on a very large scale , then US may definitely try to put brakes on it becos of pressure from human rights wallas,etc, etc and there you will millions of dollars of equipment sitting as junk in the bases while our soldiers lose their precious lives trying to kill terrorists. Good chankian move by govt eh?

[amit]

I am sorry Somanth, the only way to defeat spin is to parse the details.

A very sensible point Sanku.

Perhaps you can educate us unwashed Abduls as to why a EUMA which does not allow the US to undertake intrusive checks on equipment on site and at the time of their choosing (all available reports indicate this to be true including the link which you put in our previous post) is worse that what a case by case EUMA, which you seem to be suggesting, be negotiated.

To be more clear what will a EUMA, for example, which could be signed if one of the F-numbered planes is chosen as the MRCA winner would have in its clause which is better for India than this bespoke EUMA.

And please remember the argument can't be don't buy American. We still have that option even with a bespoke EUMA. It has to assumed that EUMA situation will come about only when the people who take decisions feel that what the US is offering is the best money can buy.

It would help if you parse the details and not come up with rhetoric that India deserves better is not like any other country in the world etc. Do remember when we reach that position - as we will - we wouldn't need to source 70 per cent of our military hardware from abroad.

And please no personal cheap attacks.

PS: You should also give a 101 lesson to Shri Sashi Taroor about the conduct of international diplomacy. God knows he tripped badly with S-e-S. You talents are wasted debating on BRF.

[amit]

So if there is another Op sarp vinash kind on a very large scale , then US may definitely try to put brakes on it becos of pressure from human rights wallas,etc, etc and there you will millions of dollars of equipment sitting as junk in the bases while our soldiers lose their precious lives trying to kill terrorists. Good chankian move by govt eh?

Well I suppose the best solution to that would be not to buy US stuff right Rkirankr?

But wait are you trying to say that in future India could use combat aircraft, heavy artillery and such stuff (which we will most likely buy from the US) to hit at terrorists in J&K? I only thought it was the Pak Army which bombed its own people.

Surely you're not suggesting that India do the same?

Too many Strawmen floating around in this thread. Usually happens when rhetoric replaces substance, unfortunately.

Please stop equating the Indon Army with the Indian Army - I think it's about time we outgrow this Third World mentality.

[somnath]

Britain recently forbade Indonesia from using its Scorpion light tanks against a separatist insurgency in Aceh, which caused Indonesia to turn toward Russia as a future supplier

What does "forbidding" mean? Are there some magical electronic locks in the tanks that render them immobile when they are being driven towards Aceh, or if the target sights has a JI mioitant on its eyes?

Separately, India is not Indonesia..the world does not treat the two similarly..No one's giving a nuke deal equivalent to Indon even if it wanted..No one's talking of Indon to be the counterweight to china..An Indonesian company does not own the largest steelmaker in Britain, or the most marquee British car brand, for that matter, an Indon company is not one of the largest employers of software techies in BRitain And Indon does not have a multi year, multi tens of billions of dollars worth of defence trade in the pipeline...

[amit]

Somnath to add to you post, India is not, has never and will not ever indulge in the kind of human rights violations in J&K that was witnessed in Aceh.

The ease with which we score self-goals is amazing. I would have thought there would be hesitation in BRF to compare anti-terrorist operations in J&K with what happened in Aceh.

[RajeshA]

There were some acquisitions in the past, which put constraints on India, as to how a certain defense equipment may be used, like say on USS Trenton.

This cannot be allowed to be the case in the future. If India pays the money and decides to systematically acquire major US platforms, like say the MRCA, then any conditions on how and where we may use the planes will have to go. There can be no conditions which says, X platform cannot be used against a Y country or a Z type of purpose. Otherwise we buy somewhere else.

Such constraints are not placed on India by the EUMA, I presume, and if it is based on the principle of inspections at a time and place of India's choosing and only because of a sound reason for it, then I am fine with the EUMA.

But such conditions would have to be avoided in the future.

[amit]

There were some acquisitions in the past, which put constraints on India, as to how a certain defense equipment may be used, like say on USS Trenton.

This cannot be allowed to be the case in the future. If India pays the money and decides to systematically acquire major US platforms, like say the MRCA, then any conditions on how and where we may use the planes will have to go. There can be no conditions which says, X platform cannot be used against a Y country or a Z type of purpose. Otherwise we buy somewhere else.

Such constraints are not placed on India by the EUMA, I presume, and if it is based on the principle of inspections at a time and place of India's choosing and only because of a sound reason for it, then I am fine with the EUMA.

But such conditions would have to be avoided in the future.

Rajesh,

I'm sure everyone on BRF will agree there cannot be any conditions imposed on which platform we can use against which country. And I'm sure people who matter in taking decisions on large purchases like the impending MRCA contract will make sure of this.


None of us has seen the actual text of this omibus EUMA so this discussion in a way is academic. However, all available news reports seem to suggest that inspection will be at a time and place of India's choosing and that the US is mainly worried about its technology falling into the hands of third parties (read Russian here). Which IMHO is understandable, I'm sure the Russians wouldn't be too pleased if we let in some US or French technicians into the INS Arihant.

Very respectable commentators like BC and Sid Varadarajan have come out against the EUMA. But if you read their articles carefully, you'll notice that they are approaching the whole issue from a more holistic POV. In other words they don't want a close, strategic engagement with the US. I know that there's a large constituency on BRF for this POV and I respect it, even though I personally feel that India is big enough and confident enough to be able to engage with every country in the world on equal terms.

Which brings us to the EUMA discussion. Do note the title of this thread. It's specifically looking into whether this agreement to agree on the proposed text of the omnibus EUMA is a "capitulation to US interests". And it is not a discussion on the pros and cons of a strategic engagement with the US. There are other threads which deal with this subject.

IMO, all available evidence suggests that the proposed agreement is quite favourable to Indian interests. Now is it enough to buy certain types of sensitive equipment from the US? Only time will tell and I personally have full faith that decision makers will take the right call. They have for 60 years - even during time when India was very susceptible to pressure - and I don't see why they won't in future.

I think the confusion that we see here is because folks who subscribe to the view that there should be no or minimum engagement with the US on a strategic level are confusing this distrust of US with what India is hoping to acheive with the omnibus EUMA - that is getting a option to buy US equipment if needed.

My problem with some folks here is that while they rail against this EUMA they are not willing to come out and say openly, don't buy anything from the US and don't have any engagement with the US. That is the cause for confusion and rather extraordinary proposals of negotiating in parallel a MRCA-specific EUMA with the US while the tendering and selection process for the MRCA goes on. It seems the competitive nature of the MRCA contest is totally forgotten in this amazing scenario.

JMT

[Sanku]

Perhaps you can educate us unwashed Abduls as to why a EUMA which does not allow the US to undertake intrusive checks on equipment on site and at the time of their choosing (all available reports indicate this to be true including the link which you put in our previous post) is worse that what a case by case EUMA, which you seem to be suggesting, be negotiated.
.

How many more times Amit?

A lot of us have discussed the corresponding logistical issues and practicability of the same as well as a deep explanation of how less intrusive != acceptable intrusive != not intrusive.

None of you guys really care about actual details and other points of views actually.

It would help if you parse the details and not come up with rhetoric that India deserves better is not like any other country in the world etc. Do remember when we reach that position - as we will - we wouldn't need to source 70 per cent of our military hardware from abroad.

Dearest Amit, India has followed what I prescribed even when it was exporting 100% from outside. So that argument does not hold.

Meanwhile there is something known as value system i.e. placing a intangible non monetary value on some things. What you call rhetoric I call value system, but then I do not expect you to understand that. I know that you are under firm belief that India does not deserve better and should be eternally gratefully for even what is.

I fully expect you and Somanth to start calling any one who subscribes to a particular vision as "whiners, old fashioned, chaddiwaalhaahs etc etc.." In fact that's all that you have been doing, so I don't expect any thing new here.


All I am trying to do is to make sure that at least the spin that "this is no big deal" is countered by showing with tons of real examples as to how it really is.

[Sanku]

Very respectable commentators like BC and Sid Varadarajan have come out against the EUMA. But if you read their articles carefully, you'll notice that they are approaching the whole issue from a more holistic POV. In other words they don't want a close, strategic engagement with the US. I know that there's a large constituency on BRF for this POV and I respect it, even though I personally feel that India is big enough and confident enough to be able to engage with every country in the world on equal terms.

Dearest Amit, this is totally your spin. Nothing they have said ever indicates what you are saying is correct.

In fact it is people like you who are guilty of turning any debate of quality of engagement into quantity of engagement with only yes engagement or no engagement as the quantities you understand.

Please do not seek to extrapolate your limitations on others.

[amit]

How many more times Amit?

Sanku,

Don't try to sound like a Headmaster, it doesn't suit your personality.

There are a lot of us who think even after so many pages on this thread you haven't been able to make one convincing and reasonable argument against the EUMA.

So forgive me if I think all these fancy styles of writing, for eg: != acceptable intrusive != not intrusive.

Are just fudging from the main issue.

Cheers!

None of you guys really care about actual details and other points of views actually.

This one takes the cake!

[amit]

Please do not seek to extrapolate your limitations on others.

You know Sanku, I knew you wouldn't be able to resist a personal attack. That's usually the lot of people who've run out of coherent arguments.

And that's why I wrote in my post to you:

And please no personal cheap attacks.

I thought I'd report the post. But what the heck, let it remain for the BRF jigra to have some fun while watching the tamasha.

And you know what? I responded to Rajesh and I'm sure he'll come back with very measured and reasoned response, which might quite well be a contrarian response to what I wrote. I'm looking forward to a good debate with him.

[Sanku]

Amit you posses enormous talent in complaining when people don't meekly submit to the epithets you impose them.

Kudos.

Considering you were the one who chose to reply to my post, I find it hilarouous that you say that you dont want to debate with me. You have this very nice ability of first picking up a debate and then pretending that you don't want to debate anyway and would rather be else where.

Meanwhile for the last time, please stop saying that "what any critique of EUM wants is no deal with US what so ever", you have been explained that clearly for a long time, but you still persist in using that tactic to attack any contraction POV (this time on rkiranr)

Kindly desist.

[amit]

Amit you posses enormous talent in complaining when people don't meekly submit to the epithets you impose them.

Kudos.

So I suppose you wouldn't mind if I wrote this:

Sanku your limitations prevent you from understanding even the most basic things and hence you don't understand the EUMA.

I'm sure you're not going to complain!

[Sanku]

Amit you posses enormous talent in complaining when people don't meekly submit to the epithets you impose them.

Kudos.

So I suppose you wouldn't mind if I wrote this:

Sanku your limitations prevent you from understanding even the most basic things and hence you don't understand the EUMA.

I'm sure you're not going to complain!

Actually you can ask the Mods on how often I complain, and this is the least of the things that you and Somnath have said about me already.

[somnath]

What I expcet a lot of our vendors to start doing is to insist on various level of "IPR protection"..WE have already seen how the Russians were not terribly happy about us taking the Su30MKI for exercises in the US. AS we start network-linking up in a big way, and also try to build various levels of interoperability with other forces, vendors will be weary of what type of IPR get transferred to competitors..For example, the French might be worried on the type of info that would need to be shared with the Yanks in case the M2ks need to be datalinked upto an F18, and so on..

This is where the final agreement negotiations will come into play - what kind of ToT, especially of source codes..

Quite frankly, EUM is a very small mole in the mountain of challenges with the Indian MIC - the bigger challenges are there, and foreign collaboration, especially with, but not restricted to, the US will go a long way in gettign us where we really "deserve" to be..

[amit]

Meanwhile for the last time, please stop saying that "what any critique of EUM wants is no deal with US what so ever", you have been explained that clearly for a long time, but you still persist in using that tactic to attack any contraction POV (this time on rkiranr)

Kindly desist.

Sigh!

This is what I wrote to Rkiranr:

Well I suppose the best solution to that would be not to buy US stuff right Rkirankr?

But wait are you trying to say that in future India could use combat aircraft, heavy artillery and such stuff (which we will most likely buy from the US) to hit at terrorists in J&K? I only thought it was the Pak Army which bombed its own people.

Surely you're not suggesting that India do the same?

And that was in response to his comparison with Operation Sarp Vinash with the stuff that happened in Aceh and not directly related to EUMA.

For your education, this is what he wrote:

So if there is another Op sarp vinash kind on a very large scale , then US may definitely try to put brakes on it becos of pressure from human rights wallas,etc, etc and there you will millions of dollars of equipment sitting as junk in the bases while our soldiers lose their precious lives trying to kill terrorists. Good chankian move by govt eh?

I'm sorry but limited is become a massive limitation. If you get time try to read up what happened in Aceh. The British did the right thing IMHO.

[Sanku]

Indeed this is what I mean.

This is what I wrote to Rkiranr:

Well I suppose the best solution to that would be not to buy US stuff right Rkirankr?

Indeed, and meanwhile if you ask me, if IA think that using heavy artillery in Kashmir is needed, that is fine, but that is OT. How Indonesia wants to use its weapons is also OT. Whether Human rights wala like it or not is also OT. Whether it can be compared is also OT. Whether it is right or wrong is even more OT.

The main point is, the weapons we buy are ours, we will do what we want with them, before after and during a war, a low intensity CI, in Sri Lanka against Tamil tigers (BMP II) (more appropriate comparison perhaps) or where ever whatever

And yes, everything else is OT including the clause to the same.

[Sanku]

Quite frankly, EUM is a very small mole in the mountain of challenges with the Indian MIC - the bigger challenges are there, and foreign collaboration, especially with, but not restricted to, the US will go a long way in gettign us where we really "deserve" to be..

Actually that spin is not going to cut it. Let the agreement not have these three clauses

1) Monitoring
2) Use restrictions
3) Modification (jugaad restrictions)

Everything else we can live with.

And no amount of spinning that these are not disruptive and damaging clauses is not going to convince any of the forces personal

[somnath]

I can only pity those who equalise Indonesia and India - so much in the shibboleths of the old that they are unable to appreciate what new India is capable of!! Indonesia , we are in a very different league!!

[Sanku]

I can only pity those who equalise Indonesia and India - so much in the shibboleths of the old that they are unable to appreciate what new India is capable of!! Indonesia , we are in a very different league!!

No one has compared India with Indonesia this is a silly tactic that you are using to deflect from the original point which how EUMA have unacceptable clauses.

[enqyoob]

Gentlemen:

This is actually a good argument, with some good, thoughtful points being raised on both/all 3 sides. Please step back from anything which might trigger complaints etc. and keep ur jabs clean, thanx.

OK, now going to kick myself for having to say that..

[Sanku]

This is actually a good argument, with some good, thoughtful points being raised on both/all 3 sides.

[rkirankr]

Somnath to add to you post, India is not, has never and will not ever indulge in the kind of human rights violations in J&K that was witnessed in Aceh.

The ease with which we score self-goals is amazing. I would have thought there would be hesitation in BRF to compare anti-terrorist operations in J&K with what happened in Aceh.

Very pious and also true. But tell me has that stopped the various entities and organisations from putting pressure on India. How long it took to tar the security forces over shopian. How much effort are they making to remove that sludge from the security forces now that the truth is known

[rkirankr]

I can only pity those who equalise Indonesia and India - so much in the shibboleths of the old that they are unable to appreciate what new India is capable of!! Indonesia , we are in a very different league!!

No one has compared India with Indonesia this is a silly tactic that you are using to deflect from the original point which how EUMA have unacceptable clauses.

Oh I never said India == Indon . What I meant is if the western powers interest is involved, it will do the same thing anywhere if that country does not have the backbone to resist it. Ok the difference here might be Indonesia probably agreed to not use it but India might go ahead and use and shows the middle finger to US. But what happens after that , who will provide the spares, servicing, for the equipment. After a while it sits in the junkyard or as per agreement unkil says give it back. So what happens to the millions of dollars of money we poured. Not only that we have to again start searching for weapons and systems to fill the gap. So we run back to russia singing teddy bear teddy bear give me some guns...The bear will have nice time now and he might play hardball.
I agree with Sanku, when we buy something it is ours . Ok we can accept things like not to sell it to a third party . However where to use it, when to use it and how much to use it , these decisions only one guy can take and that is India.

Oh and by the way thanks but no thanks Somnathji, I don't need your pity.

[rkirankr]

Amit Said

Well I suppose the best solution to that would be not to buy US stuff right Rkirankr?

But wait are you trying to say that in future India could use combat aircraft, heavy artillery and such stuff (which we will most likely buy from the US) to hit at terrorists in J&K? I only thought it was the Pak Army which bombed its own people.

Surely you're not suggesting that India do the same?

This might be OT but read it carefully http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/other-coin- ... ps-ne.html
My father was in the Mizo operations in 1966.

So you see such heavy weaponry were used. Iam saying that if such situations occur and if India gives similar response as in 66, then ....

[enqyoob]

Heh-heh!

For this thread, a 1-minute search of the famous BRM/SRR archives turns up the following (U MAY recognize some of the authors):

Find all articles at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/

A bit of background reading from the best wouldn't hurt this discussion. In particular, how are things the same / altered from what was presented and argued in these articles?

If u want to look up Pak govt sponsorship / leadership of Pak terror groups, well, there are several articles there on that too.


SRRP02020601 Prospects for Indo-US Partnership Anirudh Nair and Rudra Dev 2.2 July 2006
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/2006/ ... rship.html


SRRP02020606
Leapfrog the Technological Gap Capt. (Retd) Bharat Verma SRR Vol. 2.2 July 2006

SRRP02020605
Meeting the Challenges: IAF 2020

Air Marshal BK Pandey (Retd) PVSM, AVSM, VM 2.2 July 2006
SRRP02020604
The Indian Navy in 2020

Admiral Madhvendra Singh (Retd) PVSM, AVSM 2.2 July 2006
SRRP02020603
The Indian Army in 2020

General S Padmanabhan (Retd) PVSM, AVSM, VSM 2.2 July 2006

SRRP02010621 Military Modernization in an Era of Uncertainty Dr Shiv Shankar Sastry 2.1Feb2006

SRRP01020503 Buying an Interim Fighter Rupak Chattopadyay 1.3April2005

SRRP01020521 Military-Industrial Complex: Crafting A Winning Strategy

SRRP01020512 Offsets In International Arms Trade Need For A National Policy Maj Gen (retd) Mrinal Suman AVSM, VSM 1.2Jan2005

BRME07010801 Tabular Comparison Of The IAEA Safeguards Agreements With China AND India Editors 7.1Jul-Dec2008

BRMP06020316 India and the European Union: A Partnership for the New Millenium
A. Das 6.2 Sep-Oct2003

BRMP06020311 The Challenges of Introducing New Weapons Systems
L N Subramanian 6.2 Sep-Oct2003

BRMP05010208 Positive Sum-Game Accruals in US-India Relations
Anupam Srivastava 5.1 Jul-Aug2002

BRMP04060202 Indo-US Naval Co-operation
Vice Admiral GM Hiranandani 4.6 May-Jun2002

BRMP04010107 India and US National Missile Defense
Kaushal Vepa 4.1 Jul -Aug 2001

BRMP03040101 U.S. - India Strategic Relations: Issues before the New Administration
Gary K. Bertsch and Anupam Srivastava 3.4 Jan-Feb. 2001

BRMP03010009 The IAF enters the 21st century
R.Chattopadhyay 3.1 Jul-Aug. 2000
BRMP03010008 The Navy's procurement and modernization programs
Mrityunjoy Mazumdar 3.1 Jul-Aug. 2000
BRMP03010007 Indian Army: Marching into the next century
L.N. Subramanian 3.1 Jul-Aug. 2000

BRMP02040006 Indo-US strategic dialogue
Anupam Srivastava 2.4 Jan-Feb 2000

BRMP02039906 Technology, Security and International Regimes: India's Options
Seema Gahlaut 2.3 Nov.-Dec. 1999

SRRP01010402 A Revolution in the Indian Mindset
Capt. (r) Bharat Verma
1.1Oct2004

New "Extremely Moderately Enlightened" Moderation tactic: hammer postors who don't look up previous work, and start yada yada yada as if the Duniya needs more ignorance to increase its entropy. U r not the US State Dept or Brookings Institution to be ignorant and proud of it.

[Sanku]

Wow a right royal blast from the past (dont mean it negatively), it is fascinating to see how the Iraq-AfPak war and the recession combined has changed the picture dramatically (an assumption of US preeminence for one) for most cases it has accelerated the time frames of predections made and they are coming true much sooner than planned, and in some (few) cases the predections can already be seen as breaking down.

It is a testimony to the thinking of the worthies there in that their predictions are coming true, even at a much shorter time span period.

[enqyoob]

This is what I hoped interested ppl would do with the articles from the (recent) past. How much of the ongoing defense procurement from the US and other nations is part of what the Services laid out in their plans? What about the concerns they had then? Is GOI simply proceeding along a well-thought-out plan, and we are seeing the expected problem-solving, or has someone injected new conditions/ obstacles? Or is GOI doing much better than expected?

For instance, some years ago, there would have been no question of these "intrusive EUM" etc. for the simple reasons that (a) there was no $$$ to buy these toys and (b) relations with US were not good enough to allow such consideration.

So we could get a sense of whether the EUMA flap is just part of routine business, or something else.

[Sanku]

This is what I hoped interested ppl would do with the articles from the (recent) past. How much of the ongoing defense procurement from the US and other nations is part of what the Services laid out in their plans? What about the concerns they had then? Is GOI simply proceeding along a well-thought-out plan, and we are seeing the expected problem-solving, or has someone injected new conditions/ obstacles? Or is GOI doing much better than expected?

Ok actually very few of the articles talk specifically about the questions you raised directly, so there is some reading between the line that needs be done, however this is my understanding of the top level items nearly every one agreed on (and I can quote for the articles for each of the points but that would be messing up the post)

1) US is the dominant superpower today, but wont be by 2020 with power shifting to other states, in fact the picture described for that time is already quite accurate.
2) This gives India an opportunity to make space for itself, the real struggle is between India and China with US gradually ceding space even if not disappearing as an power.
3) India must continue to make its own path based on living up to its established peaceful trajectory, every one found it imperative that India continues on the independent power with its pre-established Dharmic credentials.
4) None of the Armed forces officers talk about the procurement from US. My understanding is that they are not seriously looking at that route when the articles were written. However the start guys do so.
5) Both the strat and the Armed forces writers are united on the pressing need for doing as much as possible in house.
6) The strat guys are very clear that US tends to armtwist and get its own way in interactions, this must be guarded against and the agreements must clearly reflect the fact that Indian interests are protected without any debate whatsoever. (well this is not surprising since many of these authors are names we can recognize and have been saying the same things right here)

In short EUMA doesn't seem like something which the above thinking supports.

[nachiket]

Quite frankly, EUM is a very small mole in the mountain of challenges with the Indian MIC - the bigger challenges are there, and foreign collaboration, especially with, but not restricted to, the US will go a long way in gettign us where we really "deserve" to be..

Actually that spin is not going to cut it. Let the agreement not have these three clauses

1) Monitoring
2) Use restrictions
3) Modification (jugaad restrictions)

Everything else we can live with.

And no amount of spinning that these are not disruptive and damaging clauses is not going to convince any of the forces personal

My two cents..

Don't you think that if the GOI could have convinced the US not to include these restrictions it would have done so?
Now if they did not agree, it leaves us with two options -
1. Don't sign the EUMA at all, effectively ending any chance of buying US mil hardware in the future.
2. Sign it an just keep an option open just in case we need something desperately and can't buy it from anyone else (e.g. weapon locating radars after Kargil). Now at that time we do not have to waste time negotiating an EUMA which will probably be even more unfair since the US will drive a hard bargain considering our desperate situation.
It is also unrealistic to assume that if we decide to sign separate EUMA's for every product purchased, that those EUMAs would be any less restrictive than a common one for everything.

Going for option 2 gives us a few advantages over option 1. In any future multi-vendor purchase (like the MRCA), it increases the competition and drives down prices to some extent.
Leaves the option of buying american if really needed as mentioned above.

Successive Indian governments have been guilty of criminal neglect of the armed forces but I don't think even MMS and co. will force the Indian military to buy something that can't be used against Pakistan or China or whatever purpose the military envisages for that equipment.

I believe they signed the EUMA just to keep options open. It does not mean that they are going to force the military to buy from the US.

[enqyoob]

That is an excellent summary, Sanku. In fact it would be a very good service if you were to grab those points from those articles and write them up with the references. One could certainly use that to beat the weak-knee/baksheeshwallahs who are eager to sign on whatever dotted lines are put b4 them. If there are several top military officers, diplomats and strategic thinkers weighing in, the advice becomes something that's hard to diss.

[Sanku]

That is an excellent summary, Sanku. In fact it would be a very good service if you were to grab those points from those articles and write them up with the references. One could certainly use that to beat the weak-knee/baksheeshwallahs who are eager to sign on whatever dotted lines are put b4 them. If there are several top military officers, diplomats and strategic thinkers weighing in, the advice becomes something that's hard to diss.

I can and will do that.

[Sanku]

[
Don't you think that if the GOI could have convinced the US not to include these restrictions it would have done so?

No I do not, I dont think the current GoI is actually leveraging India's strength in a wide variety of areas.

I believe they signed the EUMA just to keep options open. It does not mean that they are going to force the military to buy from the US.

This point has been discussed before, and I am sure it would not be amiss to refer back to the previous pages of discussion. In short, the points are
1) If needed you can always sign a item specific EUMA later, nothing stops us.
2) We are the buyers, spending hard cash, it is up to US to buy options from us, if needed by changing their modalities.

[putnanja]

EUMA: Buyer beware - ACM S Krishnaswamy (Retd)

...
Historically, the Indian military has exploited its inventory during its technical life, improving operability and efficacy. We have improved, upgraded, repaired, modified and refurbished imported equipment within the country, sometimes engaging expertise from abroad. If we had stuck to the configuration originally delivered and relied only on Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) support, we could neither have attacked Tiger Hill successfully during the Kargil war, and nor could aircraft and engines have remained operational for over 40 years. We made helicopters combat-worthy at night; we added sophisticated weapon delivery system, sensors, munitions and electronic warfare systems to the existing fleet. It is desirable that the OEM supports our efforts. The US has not permitted any country procuring their military hardware to modify or technically alter without their consent and participation. Israel is an exception and a unique example that was forced to innovate for its survival.
...
...
The Indo-US agreement on the support of design and development of LCA was the first breakthrough that happened in 1987-88. We were denied import of inertial navigation system for LCA from the US which got cleared when we accessed a similar system from elsewhere. The import of a supercomputer was denied till we started our own design. US restrictions were lifted when India accessed such technology through other sources or when indigenously developed. India is currently denied import of precision machinery (beyond certain accuracy). Some of the military equipment that was procured from the US was low/medium technology. Some of the high-end ones, such as those related to LCA was closely monitored by the US.
...
...
While we have adapted sensors and weapon systems of origin other than Russian on the SU-30MKI, the US will not permit India to adapt sub-systems, weapons and munitions of non-US origin, especially from Russia on US machines in Indian inventory. It is also unlikely that the US will permit India to develop and produce spares and other support needs for the aircraft indigenously other than through license manufacture process.
...
...
Even if 82 countries have signed such agreement, that is no compulsion for India to sign.
...
The restriction is applicable not only to supply of complete operational machines like combat aircraft, but also to supply of sub-systems, spares, machinery, raw material, information, publication etc. It is not practical for India to produce all these for verification by the US at a determined place and time. In practice, American inspectors would have to be allowed to visit where the equipment is held and operated. If it is likely to be impossible, then why submit to such a concession?
...
EUMA is an instrument that imposes the will of US as seller, on the buyer, over its entire life-cycle. Other than the commitment not to release the equipment to a third party, India must have the freedom to explore and exploit any military system that it may procure from any source.
...
...
The entry of US giants into the Indian military arena could very well suck up the little initiative that India may have.
...
American interests may lie in guarding technology, but it is in our right to innovate and explore. At the political level, we witness a strong convergence of views and interests between US and India. India needs to explore ways of not losing rights to innovate and exploit operational systems. We need the freedom to explore, and yet maintain our credibility as a respectable nation.