India-US News and Discussion

[asprinzl]

Doc,
It all boils down to credit worthiness of a country. Suppose India wants to create a negative trade balance with the US. It will all depend on the desire of the entities in the US to sell to India their goods/services on credit. For that there has to be a hell lot of confidence in the Indian economy and Indian currency. That atmosphere has to be developed. A climate must exist where people from many parts of the world are willing to park their money and investments in India. They must have a high confidence in the banking system in India. They must have confidence in the Indian government issued bonds.

It is not an impossible proposition but extremely challenging considering that while most of the money coming into India is money being sent by India workers from the Gulf/ME region, big honchos from India have the propensity to keep their money outside India especially in "Mother" England. This does not build confidence.

[Suraj]

All the stuff about Bretton Woods system yielding peace and progress is a lot of fluff, but does not address the most important factor it attempts to perpetuate, and what matters most to the US - the status of the US dollar as the international reserve currency, the primary medium of trade, as well as what the most important commodity of the 20th century - oil - is primarily denominated in.

The Bretton Woods system amounts to an 'orderly' transition from the Sterling as a primary international reserve currency, to the US dollar in that role. The US did not 'control' the development of Germany, Japan and China by being an import market, as much as driving dollar-denominated trade with them. Trade surpluses and deficits are not nearly as important as getting as many people to accept your money. Ultimately all that money comes back as investment into your country.

[svinayak]

Pretty much same as already known to majority BRFites. But the greatest impact will be in the realm of "Ideas": the ever arguing Indians with Epic size imagination will drive the thinking world bonker and make them question many material, spiritual, philosophical assumtions. Hopw we still be here to enjoy the advent of Super Desi " Maal" on world stage.

This is exactly a hot Iranian lady told me in an event recently. She does yoga and believes in peace and wants Indian influence everywhere.

[shiv]

Trade surpluses and deficits are not nearly as important as getting as many people to accept your money. Ultimately all that money comes back as investment into your country.

I am sure this is right and it is not incompatible with the stories in those articles.

India not enmeshed with the US or involved with the US as Germany, Japan and China are, but because currencies are pegged on the dollar - India is sitting on a cartload of dollars which as you say - gets invested back in the US.

Why not invest those dollars back in the US in such a way that a future stoppage of such investment can lead to pain in the US? It also helps us get a load of dollars off our backs. Are reactors and jets such a bad idea?

[shiv]

Luce addresses power, future of India

Sweet music. But I believe Indian democracy works in part **because** of the "caste system" rather than in spite of it. {It serves as a organizing principle in the absence of others.}

India's caste system has taken and continues to take a beating worse than it deserves. I have a caste - it indicates my tribe - my ethnicity. But it is a tool that has been useful on an international stage to "brand" India. OT - but there is a connection in terms of how information can be used to skew viewpoints in a particular way if you have a powerful enough propaganda apparatus.

[Suraj]

Why not invest those dollars back in the US in such a way that a future stoppage of such investment can lead to pain in the US? It also helps us get a load of dollars off our backs. Are reactors and jets such a bad idea?

The country that issues the currency that serves as a reserve currency (i.e. the US in this case with the dollar) also has the ability to control how the inward investment is invested. For example, they'll happily let everyone and his dog buy US treasuries, and in other words, buy their IOUs in exchange for hard products and services that the exporting countries are sending to US. On the other hand, they'll get in the way of any efforts to buy out US assets they consider strategic. For example, the aborted Dubai Ports World deal, and the failed attemped by PRC's CNOOC to buy Unocal. That's the power of the side who issues the currency - they get to determine what you can buy and what you cannot.

[ldev]

The post WW2 system of avoiding wars (as Johann said) was to enmesh nations in an economic tangle that benefited everyone. That was applied to all who went towards the US in the cold war. The nations that were seen as Soviet allies were essentially kept out. Apart from Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and India merited this treatment. Aside from Russia, India is the only country that is actually making some sort of impact. And while India has not much influence with the US, the US too cannot influence India and has so far only been able to see India via its cold war lens of "balancing India" with Pakhanastan.

Clearly any sensible Indian would understand that war with the US is not a good idea. The US too understands that war with India again is not a good idea. And while mutual suspicions remain, the only way forward can be mutual engagement economically, while each country protects its interests. India has the dollars to engage the US, and the US has the technology to engage India. If India's trade with the US is 1% of its total trade, forget 10% - we need to take that to 2% first before we can reassess attitudes towards each other and see if trust can be built up to take it to 3%. The US clearly desires a better handle on India and India desires the same with the US. This is not going to happen overnight, but it is going to happen. Even the BJP is heading that way. Not just Kaangress. Only CPI opposes it.

Bretton Woods was an orderly formal transition to a new reserve currency for the West in the closing days of WW2. But clearly the prospective holders of this currency did not have unmitigated faith in it. Hence it had to be convertible into gold at a set ratio of 1 ounce of gold to be paid by the US for every 35 dollars returned. Furhtermore market access in itself could not be taken advantage of by Western Europe or Japan. Their industries and infrastructure was destroyed by the war. The US stepped in and provided the capital via the Marshall Plan to Western Europe. Japan was also helped in a similar fashion.

Today's world is diferent. Capital can move freely. Exchange controls are largely dismantled. World trade is similarly liberalized. One need not have a special relationship with the US to take advantage of its market as was necessary in the years immediately following WW2. The one area which I have not explored is the degree to which and the manner in which capital was provided to China to kickstart its rapid and massive industrialization. Of course once the self sustained investment production income savings cycle started in China it has not looked back. If we assume that in the late 1970s, world capital markets were not as efficient and transparent as they are today, and if we also posit that the US helped China in its initial kick start in return for an anti Soviet alliance, how exactly did that happen in terms of the nuts and bolts.

India's great strength today is the degree to which it is not dependent on exports for economic growth or to put it another way the degree to which India is dependent on domestic private consumption for its growth. In this scenario India will never have the kind of impact on US policy that China or Japan does who are both dependent on the US consumer for economic growth at home. And I think that it is unnecessary and infact unhealthy for India to push in that direction. Long term stability and growth in India necessarily mean that India should continue to rely on domestic private consumption.

So how does India then have some kind of leverage on the US? I can think of two different ways.

One is to buy arms from the US. The reason is simple. Arms production more than anything else in the US is geographically spread out because every senator and congressman wants to have some defence production facility in his backyard. And they continue to push the Pentagon to buy items that the US armed forces do not need. Buying arms from the US brings India a lot of leverage directly with the political heavyweights in the US e.g. if the C17 production facility is going to shut down but India steps in and decides to buy 10 of them with an option to buy more, the kind of leverage India gets directly with the affected congressmen/senators is substantial.

The second is to cooperate with the US on geopolitical matters where the interests of India and the US coincide such as the Iran nuclear issue.

The million dollar question of what kind of leverage will India need to make the US see eye to eye on Pakistan is a thorny one and one I will address in a later post.

[csharma]

Arati Jerath on India US relations


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 756582.cms

SUMMER CHILL: What will bring US and India together again?

The slowdown has manifested itself quite clearly after the government shelved two foreign policy initiatives being pushed by the US. One was the resumption of the stalled Indo-Pak dialogue. The other was the passage of the nuclear liability bill without which the Indo-US nuclear deal cannot become operational. In both cases, domestic politics shackled the government as a united opposition attack spooked the Congress into distancing itself from the initiatives. Left out on a limb to fend for itself, the government was forced to abandon both moves, at least for the time being. In fact, it was conveyed to US assistant secretary of state Robert Blake during his recent India visit that it will take at least six months for the government to brace itself for another go at getting the nuclear liability bill passed in Parliament.

Those familiar with the ups and downs that have dogged Indo-US relationship over the decades believe that the chief reason for the current coolness is Washington’s perceived tilt towards Pakistan.

The defence relationship that burgeoned under the previous George Bush administration also seems to be spluttering with India more focused on trying to stop the US from selling arms and planes to Pakistan than in buying weapons systems from Washington. Cooperation in agriculture too has hit an obstacle after the recent controversy over BT brinjal and GM foods with environment minister Jairam Ramesh playing a leading role in putting up the roadblocks. Although education minister Kapil Sibal is keen to pave the way for US universities to invest in India, he is facing opposition from some of his cabinet colleagues. Left-leaning elements in the Congress that were silenced by the bulldozing of the Indo-US nuclear deal are suddenly showing their fangs.

According to him, the best course for the Manmohan Singh government is to keep its head down and not try anything dramatic with the US at the moment. “The US is pre-occupied with its Afghanistan campaign for which it is heavily dependent on the Pakistan army. This has created a situation where India cannot be given the space it deserves. This is the ground reality. I believe the situation will change again. The day is not far when the US will be irritated by the huge demands Pakistan is making. We should be pragmatic,’’ he said.

Bottomline is that India has to watch the US Pak tango and recalibrate the short term relationship with US. If the US is not giving India access to headley, providing weapons and money to Pakistan, India does not have to go out of the way to do things that will benefit US. Otherwise it will look like a sucker.

[Pranav]

US expects India to play key role in sanctions against Iran: http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... n/90213/on

Hmm ... how about the US playing a key role in sanctions against Pakistan?

(Supplies for Afghanistan should be going via Russia and the CARs)

[arun]

X Posted. The transcript of the press briefing provided by US Assistant Secretary Robert Blake is linked below.

The press briefing covers the issue of India’s access to Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David Headley, or in this case non access; the US position on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s paranoid raving and ranting that India is stealing water; the US position on terrorism emanating from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and targeting India.

Especially note the US disinclination to comment on the question of multiple serving officers of the Pakistan army being handler’s of the terrorist Daood Gilani posed by Anirudh Bhattacharyya of Hindustan Times:

Briefing by Assistant Secretary Robert Blake on Recent Travel

[CRamS]

Especially note the US disinclination to comment on the question of multiple serving officers of the Pakistan army being handler’s of the terrorist Daood Gilani posed by Anirudh Bhattacharyya of Hindustan Times:

Briefing by Assistant Secretary Robert Blake on Recent Travel

Note the clever phraseology: "Progree on the Mumbai issue". Now this is so abstract that both TSP and its US-led 3.5 friends can claim great progress. You couple that with concrete TSP action against "bad terrorists", and you get a circus like this. And finally, as many like R-man point out, f MMS himself keeps talking about walking the extra mile, India's terror concerns just become a side note, an irritant at best that Blake can just say I have a meeting at the white, thank you very much.

I was struck by the absolute box that India finds itself with TSP. Every TSP question was about India, and every Indian question was about TSP terror. And both jump as high as US wants them to, to seek his leverage on the other as best as they can. So its become a zero sum game in which every issues is muddled togther into some kind of a salad bowl, from which US can pick and choose a particular ingredient to get the seriousness it deserves.

[Neshant]

Ultimately all that money comes back as investment into your country.

It will come back as inflation not investment.

Savers of US dollars will once again be crushed as they are now.

[Kakkaji]

Charles Krauthammer's latest. My apologies if already posted:

No way to treat America's friends

Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region - common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

IMHO we need to nurture this constituency.

[A_Gupta]

^^^^^
Krauthammer is a rabid anti-Obama-ite who will say and write anything.
Regarding US's neutrality regarding Falklands, which Krauthammer calls a big insult to the great ally, the matter of fact is that it mirrors Ronald Reagan's position.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/26/obama ... trality-po

The (London) Times writes that the Obama position is in "stark contrast to the public backing and vital intelligence offered by President Reagan to Margaret Thatcher once she had made the decision to recover the islands by force in 1982."

Note the phrase "once she had made the decision," a distinction that eludes the Reagan hagiographers. Because before the British took military action in 1982, the Reagan administration was, to the consternation of the British foreign office, very much on the fence and, initially, wedded to the neutrality position. Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, lobbied for the Argentinian cause, fearful of the power vacuum that could appear in the event of a British victory.

In a letter to Thatcher, Reagan said that his government would take a neutral position on the matter—again, causing great anger—but would come out in favor of its ally if the Argentinians decide to start shooting.

It's important to remember that even after hostilities commenced, Reagan was pressing the Thatcher government for a ceasefire. Again, to the profound irritation of Thatcher. While British troops advanced on Port Stanley, the two leaders spoke on the telephone, with Reagan suggesting an immediate cessation of fighting. As the Times noted in 1992, Thatcher, "with barely concealed impatience, scotched the plan with a verbal explosion."..etc.

PS: I started giving examples, but not to make an essay of it - Obama generally takes what would have been Republican positions; since the Republicans blindly oppose Obama as such and not based on policies, they have to move further to the right.

[pgbhat]

^^^OT alert...one explanation trotted out by some republicans regarding Reagan's stand is that, the Brits would have looked weak had America intervened.

[Rudradev]

Why not invest those dollars back in the US in such a way that a future stoppage of such investment can lead to pain in the US? It also helps us get a load of dollars off our backs. Are reactors and jets such a bad idea?

This statement represents the conflation of a good idea: invest in the US, with a terrible one: buy American reactors and armaments.

In so doing, it ignores the whole point of Bretton Woods and the international regime set up there. Bretton Woods was intended to give the US lots of options in terms of available international trading partners, and to give other countries no other option (or no comparable option) to trading with the US. I will explain below what I mean by this.

We can invest dollars back in the US, and certainly the future stoppage of such investment (assuming that at some point we have enough cash in the pocket to make a real difference) would cause a certain amount of pain to the US. Or at least, to some particular interests within the US.

The question is, how much leverage does it buy us with the US, compared to the leverage the US gains over us in the process? A cost-benefit analysis clearly demonstrates the one-sidedness of that equation.

Let us assume we purchase armaments and reactors from the US. At some point in the future we are sufficiently upset by US policy that we decide to retaliate by stopping the purchases, hoping to inflict pain as coercive leverage.

But the pain inflicted on the US would be negligible compared to what our cessation of investments would inflict upon us ourselves. Especially if the "investments" include purchases of such strategic importance as the weapons we defend ourselves with, or the reactors that power our economy. Once we are buying stuff this critical from the US, nothing we can do to the US could ever hurt them as much as it could hurt us.

What would the cost be to the US if we "stopped investing" in American reactors or fighter aircraft? A Westinghouse or General Dynamics would feel a certain financial pinch from our cessation of purchases. They may try to lobby Washington to assuage Indian interests so that we would relent and resume the purchases. However, depending on the situation, it is far from guaranteed that they would be successful. History suggests that they would not even try very hard.

This is because America, capitalist as it is, is not mercantile as we are. Industry and entrepreneurship are nurtured and encouraged, but there are clear lines drawn by the government whereby American national interest (as determined by GOTUS, the State Department and the Pentagon) completely and absolutely supercedes the business interest of any American private enterprise.

This American national interest includes military, political and even ideological dimensions, which the GOTUS is entrusted with articulating. All of these invariably trump the business interests represented by private commercial enterprises in the United States, completely and without ambiguity. This is part of the American social contract: the GOTUS provides as hospitable an environment as possible for American industry and entrepreneurship to flourish, and it gives them a lot of leeway to conduct their operations for maximum profit. But when there is a question of national interest, the GOTUS makes the call and American private enterprise swallows whatever pain may be caused to them in consequence.

For example: the Pressler amendment meant that no F-16s went to Pakistan, period. No doubt General Dynamics would have loved to continue selling F-16s to Pakistan despite their pursuit of the bomb (which caused Pressler to be invoked). But it did not happen.

Another example: there is huge potential for US-Cuba trade, given the proximity of the two countries, and quite honestly there is no more danger of Cuba exporting a Communist revolution to the United States than of China doing the same. But there is virtually no trade permitted between Cuba and the US. That is because of the ideological and political determination by the GOTUS that the embargo on Cuba must continue.

No doubt many commercial interests in the US would be interested in trading with Cuba. America being an open society, many academics and other citizens have been openly debating the wisdom of continuing the embargo on Cuba.

But do not confuse this openness with an ambiguity of the hierarchical power structure in the US. GOTUS may allow debate and over the years it may make the choice to consider the alternate points of view offered by business interests and academicians. Until then, however, no commercial enterprise within the US will successfully pressure the US government to change its policy. They may attempt to persuade via lobbying and so forth, but they will never pressure in a way that undermines the final authority of the GOTUS to determine American national interest.

Unlike the IC-814 relatives or the IT-Vity Honchos who demanded that GOI not retaliate against Pakistan after the Parliament attack: all parties in America know where the lines are drawn and respect the ultimate authority of the GOTUS to draw the lines.

Now compare this with India. We have purchased American weapons and reactors. If we try to use these investments as "leverage" over American policy, we stand to lose far more than they do. They will simply shrug their shoulders, and we will be the ones short of vitally needed spares, technology or fuel. We will be the ones whose economy and defense preparedness suffers untold damage as a result.

Whatever the amount of pain caused to General Dynamics or Westinghouse by our retaliation... it can be amortized by the vast amount of trade these corporations do with other countries. Thanks to GOTUS... thanks to the US dollar being the accepted standard currency of international trade... American corporations have opportunities for profit-making all over the world. The unspoken reciprocity here is that those American corporations respect the final and binding authority of GOTUS to overrule their business interests in determining America's national interest.

THAT is the true importance of Bretton Woods. Nothing we do to any American corporation will hurt the GOTUS, or even any specific corporation beyond a certain limited extent... because America and its corporations have plenty of options. Those options were secured for American corporations by the GOTUS, through the Bretton Woods regime and the institutions it created.

Meanwhile, we have very limited alternatives available to trading with America even at the very outset. That is why we can and should invest US dollars in America, in sectors not crucial to our strategic or economic security. It would give us some extent of leverage without compromising our own interests too much.

But if we extend this principle to buying armaments and reactors from the US, we effectively reduce our options for leverage over the US from "limited" to "zero". We create an unacceptable dependence of India's strategic and economic security, upon the US. The dangers of this should be apparent to anyone.

The French and the Russians, by comparison, do not have a "Bretton Woods" equivalent. They do not have the power to make themselves indispensable trade or investment partners to anybody; nor do their corporations have the power to shrug off retaliation by foreign governments because of the umbrella of options assured to them by their own government.

In fact, that is one reason why all supplies of reactors from France or Russia would be negotiated directly with the governments of those countries.

America has two apparent tiers of entities to deal with: the GOTUS, and US private entities. These two tiers seem to operate independently of one another, but in fact they serve a common agenda, and they will always converge on maintaining American national interest as determined by GOTUS. So we fool ourselves if we think that dealing with US private entities gives us leverage over the GOTUS: it has never done so for any country, because of the social contract that exists between US private entities and the GOTUS.

Much better to deal with a France or Russia where all the cards are in one player's hand, and bilateral leverage is negotiated directly between that one player and our own country.

[A_Gupta]

Hindustan Times

US is smoothing ruffled Indian feathers.

In a sign of new comfort level between the two countries, the US briefed India on the March 24-25 US-Pakistan strategic talks. US National Security Advisor James Jones briefed his Indian counterpart Shivshankar Menon while Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao was briefed by Under Secretary of State William Burns.

Downplaying the outcome of the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, the sources said it was not a genuine strategic partnership, but "a relationship born out of necessity". "We see the glass quite clearly... it is a relationship born out of necessity in which Pakistan has to deliver a lot in terms of dealing with terrorism and the problems it faces," a source said.

The sources said India was not worried about the US agreeing to discuss a nuclear deal with Pakistan, but pointed out that it was virtually impossible given Islamabad's clandestine nuclear programme and its dubious proliferation record.

India has also rejected reports that suggested the US was not providing access to American-Pakistani David Coleman Headley, who has confessed to his role in plotting the Mumbai attacks. The two countries were in constant touch in the matter, the sources said.

Washington had assured New Delhi that it would answer every question and concern that India would raise with regard to Headley.

[NRao]

The US needs to understand that there are two issues: unnecessary US military support of Pakistan AND dealings in Afghanistan.

"Briefing"s are nice, but real things are better.

[pgbhat]

"Briefing"s are nice, but real things are better.

x2 .... you have amirkhans these days who say Obama did host a huge dinner in honour of MMS, it is the Injuns who have not delivered for America.

[Hari Seldon]

Hindustan Times

US is smoothing ruffled Indian feathers.

3 words in response for unkil.

Walk the talk.

Onlee.

[JwalaMukhi]

Hindustan Times

US is smoothing ruffled Indian feathers.

3 words in response for unkil.

Walk the talk.

Onlee.

Absolutely correct. More 3 words response would be:
Verify, not trust.
or Verify, verify, verify.
Anyone who inherited perfidious albions' methodology would require that. Or if three words is more, reduce it to two "show me".

[BSR Murthy]

U.S. Aims to Ease India-Pakistan Tension

A debate continues within the administration over how hard to push India, which has long resisted outside intervention in the conflict with its neighbor. The Pentagon, in particular, has sought more pressure on New Delhi, according to U.S. and Indian officials. Current and former U.S. officials said the discussion in Washington over how to approach India has intensified as Pakistan ratchets up requests that the U.S. intercede in a series of continuing disputes....

..."This is an administration that's deeply divided about the wisdom of leaning on India to solve U.S. problems with Pakistan," said Ashley Tellis, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has discussed the issue with senior officials in the U.S. and India. "There are still important constituencies within the administration that have not given up hope that India represents the answer.".....

...The official said the document alleges that India has never accepted Pakistan's sovereignty as an independent state, and accuses India of diverting water from the Indus River and fomenting separatism in the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan.....

....According to U.S. and Indian officials, the Pentagon has emerged in internal Obama administration debates as an active lobbyist for more pressure on India, with some officials already informally pressing Indian officials to take Pakistan's concerns more seriously. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. government's prime interlocutor with the powerful head of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, has been among the more vocal advocates of a greater Indian role, according to a U.S. military official, encouraging New Delhi to be more "transparent" about its activities along the countries' shared border and to cooperate more with Pakistan....

...The senior State Department official said the U.S. remains skeptical of Pakistani accusations about India in Afghanistan.

[Prem]

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2010/ ... noyed.html
America’s Wounded Ally,India is annoyed by Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235819
Sumit Ganguly

Obama appears largely oblivious to India's concerns. When the U.S. gathered its allies in the Afghan war at a London summit in January, Indian officials felt they were marginalized because their views were not sought or paid heed to in any fashion. They were even more annoyed by U.S. declarations of a "new dawn" in relations with India's old adversary, Pakistan, and the apparent trust American officials now place in Pakistan's willingness to fight the Taliban, both at home and in Afghanistan. Their feeling is that top Obama advisers, like national-security adviser James Jones and the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, have little experience in South Asia and have displayed remarkable naiveté in public statements.
More than once, Jones has argued that reducing Indo-Pakistani tensions would allow Pakistan to redeploy forces from its Indian border to the fight against the Taliban along the Afghan border. This is utterly fatuous in the view of Indian officials, who believe Pakistan is still dallying with the terrorists who target Indian interests in Kashmir and who orchestrated the devastating 2008 attacks on Mumbai. Despite all this, India has renewed talks with Pakistan and moved military personnel away from the de facto border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir; Pakistan has yet to reciprocate. As a result, some officials in New Delhi are livid about Jones's remarks. Holbrooke triggered a similar reaction in early March: after Afghan Taliban killed a number of Indian workers in Kabul, he blithely stated that the victims were not targeted on the basis of their nationality. Indian officials publicly dismissed Holbrooke's remarks as uninformed. Behind the scenes, they see his comments as part of a larger pattern of Obama administration insensitivity toward India.India won't wait indefinitely for the White House to put the relationship back on track. Instead, it is cutting deals with nations that respect its significance. Russia, which had let old Soviet ties to India wither, is now dramatically renewing the connection. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently visited India and went home with multiple agreements, including deals on civilian nuclear energy and more than $1.5 billion worth of advanced naval aircraft. Obama's inattention is what makes Russia's

[Prem]

The Chinese are the competition -- don't forget it
"The fact that the visit is taking place at all is important. This is the Obama administration's effort to elevate the relationship. India is not the economic powerhouse that China is, but this signals that India is getting there. "For both sides it is important. For the U.S., one can detect a kind of frustration with China." The India trip "is not necessarily a deliberate playing off, but it is good to have a balance. And for India, it does not want to be seen as playing second fiddle on everything to China." Subramanian said the United States could find a natural partner in India if it wanted to build a coalition to encourage China to let its currency appreciate, a move that would make China's goods more expensive and help alter some of the trade imbalances around the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03953.html
What should Treasury secretary tell Indian officials?

[abhishek_sharma]

From MEA's website:

Briefing by Foreign Secretary on Prime Minister’s Visit to Washington for the Nuclear Security Summit


04/04/2010

Official Spokesperson (Shri Vishnu Prakash): Good evening and very good to see you in numbers. Foreign Secretary is here to brief you on Prime Minister’s visit to Washington for the Nuclear Security Summit. She is joined by my colleague Joint Secretary (Disarmament) Mr. Gaddam Dharmendra. Ma’am, may I invite you to make your opening statement?

Foreign Secretary (Smt Nirupama Rao): Thank You Vishnu. Thank you for coming here on a Sunday. The Prime Minister will visit Washington on April 12 and 13 for a Summit on Nuclear Security. The Summit is an initiative of President Obama who has invited Prime Minister and 42 other leaders to attend. We have welcomed this initiative and have contributed substantively to the Summit preparations.

...

As regards the Summit programme, PM will arrive in Washington in the afternoon of April 12. President Obama will host a dinner that evening for the visiting leaders. The discussion at the dinner will focus on the threat of nuclear terrorism, the primary reason why the Summit has been convened. There will be two plenary sessions on April 13, focused respectively on national measures and on international cooperation to enhance nuclear security. There will be a working lunch that would be addressed by the Director General of IAEA, which plays the primary role internationally in the promotion of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Summit will conclude with the issue of an outcome document on April 13. The outcome has been negotiated over the past six months by Sherpas from 44 countries and representatives of the EU and the IAEA. I have led a team of DAE and MEA officials in discussions on the Summit outcome at meetings of the Sherpas in Tokyo and The Hague. The Sherpas will also meet in Washington on the eve of the Summit.

To sum up, nuclear terrorism is a global challenge and we see the Summit and its associated preparatory process as important elements in strengthening international resolve to cooperate on nuclear security and supporting the expanded use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This will be to India’s benefit given our concerns on terrorism as well as our interest in the expansion of civil nuclear energy. I am happy to take your questions.


Question: Two quick developments have happened. One is the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between Russia and the United States. And President Obama has recently said that he will reintroduce the CTBT in the Senate for ratification. Has the Obama Administration been in touch with you regarding CTBT and is India considering signing it?

Foreign Secretary: As partners, as close friends, India and the United States discuss a number of issues. As far as the CTBT is concerned, our position is very well-known. It has been reiterated on a number of occasions. We are committed to a voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. That remains our position. That has been very clearly articulated to all our friends and partners.

Question: Madam, this Summit is going to be on nuclear security and you just talked about nuclear terrorism. What are our apprehensions so far as Pakistan is concerned? It has been in the news for a long time that by this time the transfer of …(Inaudible)… there for over a lot of years. What are our apprehensions about Pakistan on this particular topic of nuclear terrorism?

Foreign Secretary: I am here to discuss the subject of the Nuclear Security Summit and I mentioned our concerns about nuclear terrorism. The Summit will focus on the issue of nuclear terrorism and nuclear security as a whole. We are not going to get into country-specific situations.


Question: What exactly is nuclear terrorism? Is it the yellowcake? Is it the material that comes out from processing? What exactly is it?

Foreign Secretary: The Summit, as we have prepared for it, focuses on the threat of nuclear terrorism rising from clandestine proliferation, from the illicit trafficking of nuclear weapons and diversion of nuclear materials. That is really the focus when you talk of nuclear terrorism.

Question: What are we taking to the Nuclear Security Summit in terms of ideas? There is also talk of India planning to set up an International Nuclear Security Centre. Basically what are the ideas we are taking to the Summit?

Foreign Secretary: The last issue that you have referred to is a good idea. We need to develop it further. You have to wait for the outcome of the Summit.

...

Question: Madam, you spoke about illicit trafficking. Are we ready for joining some kind of a PSI initiative?

Foreign Secretary: The Summit is not about the PSI, let me say that. And let me go back a little just to give you a little sense of the context in which we are meeting. President Obama made his speech at Prague in April 2009 when he described nuclear terrorism as the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. Now what the Summit focuses on, and what our discussions and the outcome document will in all likelihood focus on, is the national responsibility to secure nuclear materials while strengthening the international framework of such cooperation by adhering to multilateral instruments and norms. The multilateral instruments and norms, you are aware of. You have the Global Initiative to combat Nuclear Terrorism. You have UN Security Council Resolution 1540 of 2004, which we can share with you if you need copies of. These are some of the instruments, inter alia, already in place.

...

Question: One clarification. Since you speak of responsible members of the international community having a stake in nuclear security, does that by implication mean that Iran is not a responsible member?

Foreign Secretary: No, I never said that. Iran is a country with which we have bilateral relations which go back many many years. It is a substantive relationship. We regard Iran as a very important country in the region and a country with which we have had, as I said, extensive bilateral relations and dialogue and cooperation. It is a responsible country.

...

Question: Madam, Reprocessing Pact has been concluded between India the United States. When are we going to sign it? Are there any bilateral meetings planned on the sidelines of the Security Summit?

Foreign Secretary: As far as bilateral meetings are concerned, it would be too early to give you any details on that. You will have to wait for a little more time. As far as the agreement on Arrangements and Procedures is concerned, the discussions have been completed. You have seen the text of the agreement on the DAE website. The United States has to go through a process of internal consultations. Once that is over, and once we have also completed the formalities on our side, we will be ready to sign it.

Question: Madam, has the Government been allowed to question Mr. Headley?

Foreign Secretary: Not yet.

Question: Are you hoping to question him?


Foreign Secretary: We have a counter-terrorism initiative with the United States, you know, that was initialled during Prime Minister’s visit. We have extensive cooperation between the agencies on both sides on all issues relating to terrorism and including this particular case that you referred to. We have had good cooperation on this issue. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the related agencies are all in touch with their US counterparts on this subject. We are satisfied with the progress that these negotiations have made.

...

[jrjrao]

U.S. Aims to Ease India-Pakistan Tension

This above is a article worth a full and good read, mainly because it shows that the US policy is, even after these many 60 plus years, mired inside, and coated with, some very persistent and tar-like Inner Musharraf of a Cockroach.

Here is another related article in the news today:

Gains for Pakistan bear Kerry’s mark

WASHINGTON — The president of Pakistan recently sent Senator John F. Kerry flowers. Pakistan’s powerful army chief spent three hours at Kerry’s house recently for dinner. And soon, officials in Islamabad will confer on Kerry the “hilal-e-Pakistan’’ — the highest honor given to a foreigner.

(Now)...Pakistan is on track to become the second-largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world, outstripping Israel, historically the largest recipient, according to preliminary budget documents the administration gave to Congress.

The Obama administration seeks at least $3.05 billion for Pakistan for the 2011 fiscal year, about half of which would go to a massive civilian package that Kerry steered through Congress. Only one country — Afghanistan — is slated to receive more: $3.9 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations.

The figures do not include covert CIA programs or Pentagon reimbursements and supplemental military aid that are expected to bring the final price tag for Pakistan to about $5.5 billion.

Kerry hopes the aid will bolster what he calls a “sea change’’ in Pakistan.

[ramana]

Essentially Kerry Lugar Bill is to buy-off the TSP and its terrorists.

K-L Bill thinks it can change TSP but from TSP view point its the US that is changing and delivering baksheesh or tribute. If they change the money trail vanishes. So cant expect them to work at self defeating measures.

[tejas]

The stupidity the US exhibits in its dealing with Pukistan makes me wonder how it ever became a superpower in the first place. That aside, it is painfully obvious that India can never expect any help from Umrikah in dealing with TSP.

Its time to massively increase RAW's budget and offer moral support and solidarity to freedom loving people in Sindh and Baluchistan. The Islamo-fascists that infest Pukistan must be given other activities to occupy their feeble minds other than jihad in Kashmir.

[ramana]

Its not stupidity but dealing with self interests. TSP can do more to deliver on US self interests. So minor transgressions are accepted while larger interests are enhanced.

US helped GB strategically(at right time) to ensure transfer of paramountcy in the Anglo-Saxon world and that led to the superpowerdom.

[Altair]

ramana garu,
Unkil is a Business man. If Pakistan is an investment to secure interests in South Asia,Central Asia and he is pouring his money in,How is he hedging? Pakistan is a high risk investment. It can explode or implode at any given point of time. So how are they reducing the risk of investment?
Altair

[ramana]

ramana garu,
Unkil is a Business man. If Pakistan is an investment to secure interests in South Asia,Central Asia and he is pouring his money in,How is he hedging? Pakistan is a high risk investment. It can explode or implode at any given point of time. So how are they reducing the risk of investment?
Altair

By investing in Indian DIE.

[svinayak]

ramana garu,
Unkil is a Business man. If Pakistan is an investment to secure interests in South Asia,Central Asia and he is pouring his money in,How is he hedging? Pakistan is a high risk investment. It can explode or implode at any given point of time. So how are they reducing the risk of investment?
Altair

By investing in Indian DIE.

By taking care of the entire elite they reduce the risk and create predictable economic future and stability for their geopolitical space.

[Prem]

Report: Kal Penn Leaving White House For 'Kumar' SequelSource:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovies.a ... mar-sequel

is leaving the White House to return to his acting career, according to Entertainment Weekly.
The mag's Hollywood Insider blog reported that reps for the former "House" star confirmed he will reprise his stoner role in a third installment of the "Harold & Kumar" franchise.

[NRao]

Kerry hopes the aid will bolster what he calls a “sea change’’ in Pakistan.

Absolutely. A change large enough to drown Kerry in his own sea of tears.

The good General must have spun a story good enough to make Kerry so buoyant.

[Gerard]

US to help India exploit shale gas

Shale gas: Could it be a new energy source?

[Prem]

From the above link by Gerard,

According to preliminary reports, India has huge shale deposits in several coastal states, Assam, Gujarat and Rajasthan among others.
India has nearly 1,894 trillion cubic metres of gas hydrates as per preliminary survey. The central government is planning to set up a separate agency to look aft-er gas hydrate programme.

IMHO, commercial exploitation of Gas Hydrate can change our fortune for ever. I was under the impression India is collaborating with Japan and Russia in this field. The small scale production was suppose to start this year.

[tejas]

Does anyone have an idea of what 1,894 trillion cubic feet of shale gas translates into equivalent barrels of oil ?

[NRao]

Does anyone have an idea of what 1,894 trillion cubic feet of shale gas translates into equivalent barrels of oil ?

Do not bother.

Which way will India "vote" WRT Iran now? (No points for responding.)

[Rangudu]

Does anyone have an idea of what 1,894 trillion cubic feet of shale gas translates into equivalent barrels of oil ?

~315 billion barrels of oil if you assume all 1,894 tcf is extractable. Use 6000 ccf gas to 1 barrel crude conversion ratio.

Realistically, use an Expected Value of gas for a more meaninful number...

[AnimeshP]

Apologies if posted earlier .... Posting excerpts

Geithner will press case for US finance cos

First, there is the issue of providing greater market access to US financial firms. Mr Geithner is expected to press the US case once again.

The US has been emphasising on financial services, in which it holds a comparative advantage.

But with the US recovery now beginning to take hold, India can expect renewed US pressure.

India also has its list of demands. The ones on the surface relate to H1-B visas for Indian IT professionals and trade-related issues. The others, never articulated publicly, relate to US policy towards international terrorism.

Now I am wondering whether Unkil is pressurizing India or India playing Chanikian ...
Unkil may be looking at Indian savings to be invested in its Financial firms and thereby using Paki terror as a short-leased dog ... OR ... India using lure of money and getting Unkil to put a stop to Paki terror and in turn allow US Financial firms access to Indian market under RBI and SEBI regulations ...