India-US News and Discussion

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Jan 2010 20:07

^ You missed the point he was not praising India , he was infact trying to infuse the sense of urgency into Americans about the need to pull up their socks if they wish to maintain their living standards and world domination . It is immaterial as to whether he speaks off the cuff or from a teleprompter what is important is if really means what he says , that is why I said "If a leader's speech is any indicator of his/her policy formulations" .

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 28 Jan 2010 20:24

It is mere timepass to compare Indian and USA leaders in terms of debate and teleprompters. What is more crucial is to see how leaders compare when protecting and spearheading national interests. Unfortunately some @ BRFites have not still understood this and go along party lines.

As far as H1B goes; I hope we Indians don't descend down to Pakistani (former) IPL levels. No national is entitled to work in foreign lands. Once selected or after arrival; one can demand that they be treated as humans and given the basic human rights we have come to expect in democracies (or for that matter in Republics). Anthe.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jan 2010 20:28

Times Now, is taking Obama apart on his state of union address (w.r.t. outsourcing)

American jobs? What are those things? We can talk of American jobs if Americans stop selling a single pin outside their country and have none of their nationals employed outside their country.

Till such time it is just a buzz word for third rate protectionism -- not that its going to work -- hiding in the mouse hole is only going to starve the mouse, not the cat.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Jan 2010 20:51

Outsourcing is more visible when compared to other forms of globalized trade that is why so much ruckus over H1B when compared to other issues like movement of most of the manufacturing to PRC . The problem with H1B is the process has been abused and hence BO admin has a legitimate case at their hands .

What is more crucial is to see how leaders compare when protecting and spearheading national interests

The individuals in question should first be able to show that said interests have been identified and this obviously cannot be done without appropriate articulation , hence my comment on the lines of 'if speech is any indicator' .

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 28 Jan 2010 20:53

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02831.html

Tone of article is generally ok, but check the comment about the recent so called IPL controversy.

Again, empathy and recognition is totally lacking. India lives right next door to the biggest source of terrorists in the globe. India's main city Mumbai has been attacked no less than 4 times, in at least 3 of them there was a Pakistani hand. And this writer has the audacity to talk about 'prejudice' with regard to Pakistanis. What standard is she using? There would first have to be massive and repeated terrorist attacks against the US on its own soil, originating from neighbouring countries. Or even from distant countries like Saudi, Iran and Pakistan. There would be a similar event involving a 'draw' of professional athletes from those countries, where there is a chance of them being selected. Then, you could perhaps make a comparison.

There are just too many of these nincumpoops who want to shield or defend Pakistan; they haven't freed themselves of the colonial and/or cold war mentality.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Jan 2010 20:56

She was in Jaipur recently afaik for the 'literature festival' .

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 28 Jan 2010 21:06

arun wrote:X Posted:

Bhaskar wrote:US okays howitzers worth $647 million for India

<span><a linkindex="90" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 506969.cms
" class="smarterwiki-linkify">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 506969.cms

</a></span>[/quote]

Should we now cancel that deal in return to new US policy of cutting the outsourcing which will be a $30 billion hit hole to Indian industry?
This might appear like a slap on the face ,if we can dare to go with other manufacturers.

May be time to leverage the deals with domestic and other foreign suppliers.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 28 Jan 2010 21:20

The problem with Obama is that he thinks massive public spending and economic interventionism has resulted in the worst passing. Err, we in the US haven't seen anything yet. He's repeating the same mistakes that Hoover and FDR made which actually prolonged the depression. He should have let the banks fail and let the recession run its course. No doubt, it would've been a hard pill to swallow b/c of the almost instantaneous economic collapse but at least it would've been smaller in comparison to what we are going to be facing in the future. Moreover, forcing OPEC to trade oil in dollars which ensures our reserve currency status has led to even more economic hurdles and it's only a matter of time before this practice becomes militarily unsustainable. Candidates like Ron Paul who believe in sound money, competition, and reforming the FED would've probably done a much better job. It'll be interesting to see how the next presidential election plays out.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jan 2010 21:37

negi wrote:The individuals in question should first be able to show that said interests have been identified and this obviously cannot be done without appropriate articulation , hence my comment on the lines of 'if speech is any indicator' .

Actually I dont think Obama's antics are actually going to change anything w.r.t. Indian IT industry.

What it is actually going to hurt big time are American companies which directly tend to get bodies to bring down costs or directly use operations outside the country.

Indian companies will just become a full "solution" provider rather than a body shopper -- this move has been happening for a long time now and will get accelerated.

The fundamentals that cause outsourcing to happen
1) Massive lack of adequately trained manpower
2) At reasonable costs

Are not being addressed by Obama, this is just a "Lalu" variety of quick fix -- not gonna work.

These moves will have two effects
1) Short term pains for many Indians
2) Acceleration of demise of US pre-eminence as a country with sensible economic foundations and practices.

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

And oh, this is half baked socialism at its worst. Even Mrs G was better I think (given the context) he is doing all that JN cabal did to get India in the soup of the 60s/70s.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 28 Jan 2010 22:04

negi wrote:^ You missed the point he was not praising India , he was infact trying to infuse the sense of urgency into Americans about the need to pull up their socks if they wish to maintain their living standards and world domination . It is immaterial as to whether he speaks off the cuff or from a teleprompter what is important is if really means what he says , that is why I said "If a leader's speech is any indicator of his/her policy formulations" .

negi saar ... I think you and I are "violently" agreeing here ...

... I'm also not saying that Obama was praising India ... my contention was that the very fact that he mentioned India will get our media into a tizzy ....
On your point regarding a leader's speech & policy formulations ... I agree with your point here as well but would like to point out that the keyword in your statement is "If"... and my read of Obama is that he is good at giving lofty speeches but is lacking when it comes to actual implementation of actions listed in those speeches ...

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 28 Jan 2010 22:09

SwamyG wrote:It is mere timepass to compare Indian and USA leaders in terms of debate and teleprompters. What is more crucial is to see how leaders compare when protecting and spearheading national interests. Unfortunately some @ BRFites have not still understood this and go along party lines.

As far as H1B goes; I hope we Indians don't descend down to Pakistani (former) IPL levels. No national is entitled to work in foreign lands. Once selected or after arrival; one can demand that they be treated as humans and given the basic human rights we have come to expect in democracies (or for that matter in Republics). Anthe.

The H1B workers issue is serious business. Comparing it to Pakis complaining about IPL trivializes the matter and displays lack of understanding. As I said, before, the US is well within its rights to restrict H1B visas and can do so by limiting the number of visas issued to Indians. The Bush administration did just that. Rather this is the Obama administration looking for jobs that is harassing Indians AFTER they have valid entry & work documents issued by other US agencies. For example, impacted companies are like HCL that do work for Microsoft and others.

The next step is to penalize companies that hire in India for back office work in the US. This can be done by prohibiting them from local, state and federal government contracts. I don't know if anyone caught this, but the Obama administration blackmailed Toyota to stop selling several models due to a minor issue of accelerator pedals sticking in 5 instances. Don't tell me this doesn't happen with US models. It will cost Toyota billions, but will make Michigan happy which they need in electoral votes come 2012. In the meantime, Toyota will close operations at assembly plants that are located in Kentucky and Texas, where Obama wasn't going to win anyway, and will cause job loss. The Obama administration is interfering with the business process for political goals. They are no better than the worst Indian politicians.

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Jan 2010 22:15

Sanku saar my comments about Obama's speech were not about IT or outsourcing, having said that what you said about the whole outsourcing or IT business will materialize only if IT honchos show some initiative and willingness to grow out of existing working model . Jobs reclaimed by curtailing outsourcing are minuscule but as I said they are in what we call visible spectrum hence BO will oblige to the public sentiments now whether Indian IT exports will be affected in long/short term warrants a separate discussion.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 28 Jan 2010 22:27

Sanku wrote:
negi wrote:The individuals in question should first be able to show that said interests have been identified and this obviously cannot be done without appropriate articulation , hence my comment on the lines of 'if speech is any indicator' .
Actually I dont think Obama's antics are actually going to change anything w.r.t. Indian IT industry.

What it is actually going to hurt big time are American companies which directly tend to get bodies to bring down costs or directly use operations outside the country.

Indian companies will just become a full "solution" provider rather than a body shopper -- this move has been happening for a long time now and will get accelerated.

The fundamentals that cause outsourcing to happen
1) Massive lack of adequately trained manpower
2) At reasonable costs

Are not being addressed by Obama, this is just a "Lalu" variety of quick fix -- not gonna work.

These moves will have two effects
1) Short term pains for many Indians
2) Acceleration of demise of US pre-eminence as a country with sensible economic foundations and practices.

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

And oh, this is half baked socialism at its worst. Even Mrs G was better I think (given the context) he is doing all that JN cabal did to get India in the soup of the 60s/70s.

Absolutely correct and well said.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 28 Jan 2010 22:30

negi wrote:Sanku saar my comments about Obama's speech were not about IT or outsourcing, having said that what you said about the whole outsourcing or IT business will materialize only if IT honchos show some initiative and willingness to grow out of existing working model.

I agree its a separate debate -- my reasons for taking it up on this thread were two fold

1) Overall impact on "ties with US is good" is driven largely by this factor in India. US may eventually help India by forcing Indian companies to make better business models (end to end solution providers like IBM (say)) but in the short term this is going to really damage the perceptions of US in India without getting US ANY benefits in terms of jobs and a sharp loss in terms of biz efficiency.

2) Make a point on the overall decline of US under a rather submissive and meek presidency which appears to believe that receding into a shell is the way to preserve the American way of life -- consequently the impact on India of a rapidly retreating US.

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

Thanks Mort!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jan 2010 07:36

Sanku wrote: American jobs? What are those things? We can talk of American jobs if Americans stop selling a single pin outside their country and have none of their nationals employed outside their country.

Absolutely correct. The problem is that mainstream American press (e.g.: NYT) does not publish a balanced view of these issues regularly. (Same with the coverage of Climate change problem). They have been brought up on the idea that Americans have a God-given right of being the best and most prosperous forever.

Only a small group of educated people understand and express more nuanced views. Unfortunately, not many people want to listen to them.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jan 2010 07:51

I am pretty sure Obama understands that, on an average, Americans benefit from trade. He rails against "outsourcing" to keep the trade unions (and voters in Ohio/Pennsylvania) happy. He is a smart and disingenuous guy.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Jan 2010 08:00

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... _miss_much

Decoding Obama's speech

Now, let's see if there's anything of substance in there:

1) "We will double our exports over the next five years..." Well, the President said this would happen, so it must be so!! I would humbly request that the president also decree that the pull of gravity be cut in half. The government has an equal chance of making that happen.

2) "we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets..." The key word there is "shape." I have every confidence the administration will do this, because they make this pledge in every communique they ever issue. It's a tradition now, like playing "Hail to the Chief." Play the music, pledge to work on Doha, and then go about your business.

3) "we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia." You mean, by ratifying the threee trade agreements that have already been signed and negotiated? Oh, you don't mean that? Well, never mind, then.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 29 Jan 2010 12:10

I just cracked up listening to Pentagon Fox news network. Unlike in India, there is not even an inkling, let alone debate on whether to make love to terrorists or not; the debate is whether to even try a few terrorists in NY city. There was a breaking news segment; and I thought it would be something news worthy, and instead the anchor annoucning in loud angry tone that trial of Khalid Sheikh not to be in NY city. And even on that there is liberal Vs conservative BS debate; the conservative view is that Obama took too long to decide this

. This is quintessential nationalism at its best. Of course, these very same rabid hyper nationalists never tire of preaching to India that it must surrender to Paki terrorists.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 29 Jan 2010 18:24

Its only yesterday when I came to know that WIPRO makes consumer electronics and supercomputers for customers over the world.
May be the cut in outsourcing will prompt the desi IT-witty gaints to take on directly over their other counterparts to leverage the business.
WIPRO claims that it can pull over petaflops as per the customer requirements.Why not any Gov/educational institution buy one to prove that India is in no way behind,be it software or hardware. Might send some jitters down to pentagon?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jan 2010 22:11

>>>>Comparing it to Pakis complaining about IPL trivializes the matter and displays lack of understanding.
I dare say I have better understanding of the fundamentals than what ahem ahem some of you might have. There are two things here. One is related to jobs - providing or restricting jobs to foreigners. The other is once having provided jobs to foreigners, treating them the way humans should be treated in a democratic setup.

You are just caught up in your own political chakravyuh.

jaladipc · Post by **jaladipc** » 30 Jan 2010 00:18

Reliance Petroleum jittery as US plans tough new sanctions on Iran

Why should India and indian countries always have to become the scape goat because of US obsession with other countries?

Probably lack of a good balled leaders in India.
yet many US companies sell arms to porkiland and we never put sanctions on them.Sad part is neither India nor Indians will never learn their lessons.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2010 00:39

I dare say I have better understanding of the fundamentals than what ahem ahem some of you might have.

As has been said on this forum, nobody cares about a postor's credentials, resumes or whom he or she knows as influential persons in government or industry. So claiming one has a better understanding is irrelevant and a bizzare one-upmanship game.

On the H1B workers issue, one point is what actual US law and regulations are, the other being selective enforcement of regulation in order to complete political goals. If you can't understand this, there isn't any point in having any discussions and has nothing to do with defending a political position. There are several people on BRF that can see through the political bullshit in India and the US.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Jan 2010 00:43

As has been said on this forum, nobody cares about a postor's credentials, resumes or whom he or she knows as influential persons in government or industry. So claiming one has a better understanding is irrelevant and a bizzare one-upmanship game.

Dude, you brought the topic of understanding (or lack of), not me. So, say it to yourself. And see the last sentence of your own paragraph and you talk about one-upmanship, makes me

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Jan 2010 01:44

Well, that clears that, as you've proven you have a better understanding of the fundamentals more than others.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Feb 2010 00:37

A flurry of visits in run-up to Obama’s India trip ( Will he make few second stop in islooland like Clinton)
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wor ... 12855.html

There is some speculation that Obama may well visit India in June during the summer school break as he plans to bring along his daughters Malia and Sasha too. But the Delhi heat during June may be a deterrent factor.The prime minister’s April visit will be his third trip to the US in seven months. He was in Pittsburgh in September for a summit of the Group of Twenty (G20) countries hosted by Obama. He came again in November for Obama administration’s first State visit, considered a signal honour for India.The Washington summit is the result of a decision by the Group of Eight (G8) countries at their summit in L’Aquila, Italy, in July 2009, to endorse Obama’s ambitious initiative in Prague three months earlier to rid the world of nuclear weapons.The key objective is to deal with nuclear terrorism and launch an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within four years.Another aim is to break up black markets like the one run by notorious Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and detect and intercept materials in transit and use financial tools to disrupt illicit trade in nuclear materials.Before Manmohan Singh comes calling, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma will visit Washington in March to take forward the agenda of deepening the economic partnership between the two countries.The India-US CEOs’ Forum co-chaired by Ratan Tata, chairman, Tata Sons Limited and David Cote, CEO, Honeywell Inc too would be meeting then.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 02 Feb 2010 02:07

The whole H-1 visa program is a bonded labor pig program with lipstick on it.
Because of lack of real portability in employment, I know a number of smart Indians who have become mentally unstable due to fuzzy, selective and changing interpretations based on politicians political view of the H-1 B law.
The H-1 program should not be company specific but rather time specific where one can work anywhere in given time say 6 years.

Mort Walker wrote:
On the H1B workers issue, one point is what actual US law and regulations are, the other being selective enforcement of regulation in order to complete political goals. If you can't understand this, there isn't any point in having any discussions and has nothing to do with defending a political position. There are several people on BRF that can see through the political bullshit in India and the US.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 02 Feb 2010 02:56

SwamyG wrote:>>>>Comparing it to Pakis complaining about IPL trivializes the matter and displays lack of understanding.
I dare say I have better understanding of the fundamentals than what ahem ahem some of you might have. There are two things here. One is related to jobs - providing or restricting jobs to foreigners. The other is once having provided jobs to foreigners, treating them the way humans should be treated in a democratic setup.

You are just caught up in your own political chakravyuh.

The Pakistani cricket players are not just any foreigners, they are citizens of a state that has a policy of murdering Indians, and some of them have family members that are actively engaged in said activity. Every Pakistani who does not come out and repudiate their country's policy towards India is complicit in that policy. Therefore, we have a perfect right to discriminate against them; hurting their tender feelings is nothing compared to the hurt that they, even tacitly, participated in the ghastly murder of our fellow Indians, not even sparing children.

The Paki cricketers should count themselves lucky that they were not chased into the Arabian Sea by howling mobs of stone-throwing outraged Mumbaikars.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 02 Feb 2010 05:00

SwamyG wrote:As far as H1B goes; I hope we Indians don't descend down to Pakistani (former) IPL levels. No national is entitled to work in foreign lands. Once selected or after arrival; one can demand that they be treated as humans and given the basic human rights we have come to expect in democracies (or for that matter in Republics). Anthe.

Mort Walker wrote:The H1B workers issue is serious business. Comparing it to Pakis complaining about IPL trivializes the matter and displays lack of understanding. As I said, before, the US is well within its rights to restrict H1B visas and can do so by limiting the number of visas issued to Indians. The Bush administration did just that.

There are nuances. You should take a look at "Globalization and its discontents" by Stiglitz. Free movement of labor is one of the sweeteners agreed to by developed countries in exchange for market access to developing countries. Now you might argue that restrictions on import of labor is particular nation's sovereign rights, but this would mean that punitive tariffs on import of goods are sovereign rights too. So it follows that -- US should not whine if India imposes tariffs on goods, if US places restriction on labor. These are the rules!

The rules are simple. They restrict Indian labor, we restrict our market. That is why there is official-level "whining". We are warning of a free-for-all with trade barriers and such if the consensus is broken. It is not whining based on a sense of entitlement. This is the crucial difference between IPL and labor export. Note that the export of Indian labor did not occur in a vacuum. It is a result of concessions wrung out from carefully crafted negotiations and much chai-biskoot by our babus during GATT and WTO negotiations. The agreement was that barriers to movement of (1) Goods (2) Services (3) Capital (4) Labor will be eased. No going back on that !

IPL is a domestic and private enterprise run affair in India not regulated by ICC. The teams are free to choose whoever they want at whatever the price. Forget the Pakis being terrorist jihadis, Legally, there is no multilateral treaty allowing for exchange of cricketing services from Pakistan! The outrage is manufactured by Pakis who miss making a nice chunk of change playing in kuffar land and whining based on their sense of entitlement. This is the difference.

Edit: To learn about this further, please refer to GATS (general agreement on trade in services) agreement that was reached as part of the Uruguay round in '95. Guru wikipedia talks about 4 modes of trade in services covered under GATS

Mode 1: Cross-border supply- Service delivered within the territory of the Member, from the territory of another Member
Mode 2: Consumption abroad-Service delivered outside the territory of the Member, in the territory of another Member, to a service consumer of the Member
Mode 3: Commercial presence-Service delivered within the territory of the Member, through the commercial presence of the supplier
Mode 4: Presence of a natural person-Service delivered within the territory of the Member, with supplier present as a natural person

Mode 3 & 4 are most relevant to Indian IT exports. Through subsidiaries located in the US for example and by shipping our labor to the US for example. ("Natural person" = trade jargon for "Human being").

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 02 Feb 2010 05:36

Anujan,

Very good post.
I thought I posted this point previously, but perhaps forgot to hit submit a couple of days ago

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Feb 2010 07:12

Huge Deficits May Alter U.S. Politics and Global Power

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/po ... ficit.html

In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.

The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Feb 2010 07:13

^^ We should keep an eye on our deficits as well. We don't want to be in their position.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 02 Feb 2010 10:12

Not sure where to post this.....so here goes.
CIA moonlights in corporate world

In the midst of two wars and the fight against Al Qaeda, the CIA is offering operatives a chance to peddle their expertise to private companies on the side — a policy that gives financial firms and hedge funds access to the nation’s top-level intelligence talent, POLITICO has learned.

The firm is called Business Intelligence Advisors, and it is based in Boston. BIA was founded and is staffed by a number of retired CIA officers, and it specializes in the arcane field of “deception detection.” BIA’s clients have included Goldman Sachs and the enormous hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors, according to spokesmen for both firms.

BIA has employed active-duty CIA officers in the past, although BIA president Cheryl Cook said that has “not been the case with BIA for some time.”

But the ties between BIA and the intelligence world run deep. The name itself was chosen as a play off CIA. And the presence of so many former CIA personnel on the payroll at BIA causes confusion as to whether the intelligence firm is actually an extension of the agency itself. As a result, BIA places a disclaimer in some of its corporate materials to clarify that it is not, in fact, controlled by Langley.

BIA’s clients can put the company on a retainer for as much as $400,000 to $800,000 a year. And in return, they receive access to a variety of services, from deception detection to other programs that feature the CIA intelligence techniques.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 02 Feb 2010 12:49

It is interesting to see the budget of Obama. I hope this provides jobs for those jobless in US. I also hope reform with human face will be a kind of motto of US governance. I think Obama admin thinks that joblessness is also indirectly linked with overseas callcentres. IF this were not true then we need to see that the information to Obama is provided correctly. India needs to hire someone to do some research in US job market. If this is the case India has to think in long term of finding alternatives routes.

Even for Obama he should consider asking the huge profit making companies either to reinvest their profit into industries or get a big tax in their sharing of the dividents and million bonuses even to the extent of 70 to 80 percent. There is a kind of run away with this bigmoney kind of attitude is there.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Feb 2010 02:23

Cold war era regulations hampering Indo-US relationship: US official

...
The cold-war era policies restricting technology transfer is coming in the way of strengthening and deepening of America's relationship with India in the 21st century, a top Obama Administration official has said.
...
.
"And yet, as we try to sell them equipment that they're very interested in, we're getting hung up on these technology-transfer issues that are really a legacy of the Cold War and have nothing to do with our modern relationship with India and the kind of partnership we're trying to build there," Flournoy said with a sense of frustration that the Obama Administration is not able to sell the type of military equipment required by India because of such outdated laws enacted by the Congress during the cold war period.

"Trying to explain this to them (India) is very difficult when we don't have a lot of confidence in the system as it is today," Flournoy said, hoping that the Department of Defence would be trying to engage itself with the Congress on this issue this year.

...
...

"I mean, the Secretary (of Defence) likes to use the example of having found some things on the protected-items list that, you know, you could go to Beijing -- to the Radio Shack in Beijing and buy," the Undersecretary of Defence pointed out.

"So, we really need a scrub of the whole system to build higher walls around the true crown jewels that we're trying to protect and create a more open and transparent and workable system for the rest. That's really what we're aiming for," Flournoy said.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 04 Feb 2010 06:06

‘We (the US) are creating a big problem for India... we have created a monster on steroids in Pakistan’ - Larry Pressler

...
“I have been disappointed in India not raising a voice about what’s happening in Afghanistan, what a mistake we are probably making,” Pressler, who was in India on a speaking tour, told The Indian Express. “We are creating a big problem for India because at the end of the day India is going to have on its border a highly armed loose canon in Pakistan, a rogue state whose government is not what we espouse or support. A rogue Pakistan on steroids of US money,” he said.
...
...
“I don’t believe we can win in Afghanistan, whatever that means, because nobody is going to stand and fight this highly technical army but they are just going to move aside until we leave,” he said. “We are going to be in Afghanistan for three or five years, declare victories, and they’ll be killing some people and so forth and vice-versa, then we’ll decide to come home.”

“But at that point, what have we left behind? We would have created a monster on steroids in Pakistan because we’ve made such sweeping enhancements of their equipment and long range bilateral promises. We are making 20-year commitments on weapon systems and so forth. I don’t think the Pakistanis give a hoot about the Taliban. They are worried about India,” Pressler fires away, no holds barred.
...
...
While the US and the UK could be blamed for the mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “the leaders of India have got to be speaking up more. It seems as though they have kind of subdued their voices because they are getting this nuclear deal and all these arms and there is this special relationship,” he said. “Having a close relationship between democracies does not mean you agree on everything. And there should be some robust disagreements occasionally. I hope that the Prime Minster of India speaks out on these matters publicly more and he can remain just as close to the US and so do we,” he added.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 04 Feb 2010 08:12

US takes new step on India nuclear deal, certifies Indian nuke facilities safeguarded

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Feb 2010 09:47

The End of Diplomacy?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _diplomacy

Back in the day, there was a time when American diplomacy did big and important things.

No more, it seems. The world's gotten complicated; America is a good deal weaker; and the U.S. administration is handicapping itself with a dysfunctional bureaucratic setup that makes it harder to focus and find its footing.

Effective American diplomacy may well be going the way of the dodo; and the sad fact is there may be little Barack Obama can do about it.

...

America never ran the world (an illusion the left, right, and much of the third and fourth worlds believe); but there were moments (1945-1950, the early 1970s, 1988-1991) when the United States marshaled its military, political, and economic power toward impressive ends.

There were, or course, disasters and plenty of dysfunction during these years, including Vietnam War and out-of-control CIA operations. But there were also brilliant achievements: the Marshall Plan, NATO, effective Arab-Israeli diplomacy, détente with the Russians, opening to China, a competent American role in the acceleration and management of the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War.

...

In garden spots like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, the problems are four parts military, five parts nation-building, and maybe one part diplomacy. And America is unlikely to prevail in any meaningful sense of the word where corrupt, extractive regimes are unable to control their own territory and cut deals with anti-American elements and place their security and political concerns first.

Even in areas where diplomacy might seem to work on paper -- Kashmir, Arab-Israeli peacemaking -- the United States is hampered by conflicts driven by deep ethnic and religious hostility and by internal politics in which its own allies (Israel, Pakistan, and India) can't be of much help. And in one of the cruelest ironies of all, the U.S. president who has gone further to engage Iran than any of his predecessors is watching any hope for diplomacy being ground up by a regime under siege in Tehran.

...

Whether it's an inability to get tough sanctions from the international community against Iran, bring Tehran to heel, make North Korea play ball, get the Arabs and the Israelis to cooperate, or push the Pakistanis to hit the Taliban and al Qaeda in a sustained way, the world has gotten used to saying no to America without cost or consequence. And that's very bad for a great power.

...

It's still early, and maybe the Obama administration will get lucky. Perhaps the Iranian regime will collapse or the Arabs and Israelis will do something good by themselves. But the next several years are more likely to be tough ones for American diplomacy. And the image that comes to mind isn't a terribly kind one: America as a kind of modern-day Gulliver tied up by tiny tribes abroad and hobbled by its inability to organize its own house at home.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Feb 2010 18:19

Watch this unmissable tragic video clip of a bungled IA operation in Peru,where a plane carryina a family of US missionaries was mistakenly shot down by the Peruvian air force as a drug trafficking aircraft.Despite filming the entire incident by a CIA aircraft,the agency hid the true facts from the US lying to the nation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 014620.ece

Code: Select all

Video shows fighter jets shooting down US missionaries
Anne Barrowclough 
 
A video has emerged showing a bungled CIA operation that led to the shooting down of a light plane carrying American missionaries in Peru. 

The dramatic footage, taken from a CIA surveillance aircraft and shown on America's ABC News, shows Peruvian fighter jets opening fire on the missionaries' seaplane even as its pilot screamed for help. 

Although the Peruvian pilots issued a warning, the pilot of the missionaries' plane was on a different frequency and could not hear it. 

The Peruvian jets shot down the missionaries despite CIA officers expressing serious doubts that the people they were shadowing were drug dealers. 

The aircraft was carrying Jim and Veronica Bowers and their children Cory, 6, and their adopted baby Charity, who were returning from a routine trip to Brazil. Mrs Bowers and seven-month-old Charity were killed in the attack. 

The emergence of the video has led to renewed accusations that the CIA lied to Congress and covered up its role in the 2001 deaths of Mrs Bowers and Charity. 

Senator Pete Hoekstra, who has campaigned for the Bowers family, told ABC News: "If there's ever an example of justice delayed, justice denied, this is it." 

Mr Hoekstra, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added: "The [intelligence] community's performance in terms of accountability has been unacceptable. These were Americans that were killed with the help of their Government, the community covered it up, they delayed investigating." 

On April 20, 2001, the Bowers were returning from Brazil to the remote houseboat near Iquitos on which the family lived during missionary work with Indian tribes. The jungle region is heavily travelled by drug traffickers and since 1995 the CIA and Peruvian airforce had operated a joint programme to intercept drug aircraft, shooting them down if necessary. 

On this occasion, the CIA aircraft came up behind the Bowers's plane, piloted by Kevin Donaldson. Believing it was a drugs aircraft the CIA alerted the Peruvian Air Force, which scrambled a fighter jet. Over the next two hours, as doubts set in, the CIA pilots repeatedly expressed their concern over the true identity of their target but did nothing to prevent the Peruvians from shooting down the missionaries. 

In the footage, conversation between the Peruvians and the CIA, and the missionaries' pilot's last desperate screams are clearly heard. 

When the Peruvian Air Force jet arrives it issues a warning to the target aircraft, saying: "We will shoot you down," but it is on the wrong frequency and goes unheard by Mr Donaldson. 

The CIA pilots start to have doubts, with one saying "This guy doesn't fit the profile," and ask a Peruvian Air Force contact on the ground: "Are you sure is bandito? Are you sure?" 

"Yes, OK," says the Peruvian. 

"If you're sure," says the CIA operative. Then one of the CIA men whispers to his colleague in his aircraft: "That is bull****. I think we're making a mistake." 

"I agree with you," says the other operative. 

Related Links
CIA ‘lied’ over fatal attack on missionary plane 
Questions as CIA kill British terror suspect 

A minute and a half later the gunships open fire and Mr Donaldson screams in Spanish for the jet to stop. 

"They're killing me. They're killing us," Mr Donaldson yells on the tape. 

"Tell him to terminate," says one of the CIA operatives to the Peruvian ground contact. " No. Don't Shoot. No more, no mas." 

The Peruvian ground contact shouts at the pilot, "Stop! No mas, no mas, Tucan no more." 

"God," says one of the CIA pilots. 

By then Mrs Bowers and Charity are dead from a bullet that pierced the Cessna’s fuselage, passing through her back and lodging in the baby's skull. 

The pilot, his legs mangled by a burst of heavy-calibre bullets, managed to crash-land on the piranha-filled river. Mr Bowers and Cory watched Mrs Bower's body float away as they clung to the wreckage. 

Yesterday, the CIA said that its nine-year investigation had determined that 16 CIA employees should be disciplined, including the woman then in charge of counter-narcotics. In a statement, the agency appeared to blame the blunder on the Peruvian Air Force. 

"The programme to deny drug traffickers an 'air bridge' ended in 2001 and was run by a foreign government," the CIA said. "CIA personnel had no authority either to direct or prohibit actions by that government. CIA officers did not shoot down any airplane. In the case of the tragic downing of April 21, 2001, [sic] CIA personnel protested the identification of the missionary plane as a suspect drug trafficker. 

"This was a tragic episode that the Agency has dealt with in a professional and thorough manner. Unfortunately, some have been willing to twist facts to imply otherwise. In so doing, they do a tremendous disservice to CIA officers, serving and retired, who have risked their lives for America's national security." 

Mrs Bowers's mother, Gloria Luttig, told ABC News: "I want somebody to have to stand up and say I was responsible. I want him to know what a mother's  heart is like."

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 05 Feb 2010 03:19

prad wrote:from the article, it's clear that the CIA people had doubts and that it was the Peruvian Air Force which shot the plane down regardless of the CIA operatives' reservations. ultimately, the CIA lied b/c disclosing things like this, even though it wasn't their mistake, only makes it worse for them. the ACLU and liberals will descend on them crying that liberty and freedom were dying at the hand of the CIA! blaming CIA is pointless when somebody else is doing the shooting contrary to what the CIA people on the spot were saying, which was to stop shooting.

If you look at the transcript, the CIA at the very end asked the controller to call off the mission. Though they expressed doubts, they should have been more forceful at that time itself.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 05 Feb 2010 03:33

Wonder what unkils statement will be abt the holy war declaration in POK