India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[arjunm]

Barbara Boxer also supports Naga separatist group. She gave a welcoming speech on the eve of opening office by the Naga separatist leaders in Washington D,C-

Barbara Boxer says further, "While Nagaland has evolved its own type of social
system, it is founded on American principles(read Christian) and its political structure has
been influenced by American missionaries who went there in 1839. I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome Nagaland's presence in Washington and recommend
our committee to provide technical training to Nagaland to create a voice (for
Nagaland) in US, support their right to self-determination and freedom from
their oppressors." Boxer attended the opening of NSCN(IM)'s office in
Washington. She backed the group's demand for a Greater Nagalim including

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ernal.html

[Arjun]

Barbara Boxer also supports Naga separatist group. She gave a welcoming speech on the eve of opening office by the Naga separatist leaders in Washington D,C-

Barbara Boxer says further, "While Nagaland has evolved its own type of social
system, it is founded on American principles(read Christian) and its political structure has
been influenced by American missionaries who went there in 1839. I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome Nagaland's presence in Washington and recommend
our committee to provide technical training to Nagaland to create a voice (for
Nagaland) in US, support their right to self-determination and freedom from
their oppressors." Boxer attended the opening of NSCN(IM)'s office in
Washington. She backed the group's demand for a Greater Nagalim including

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ernal.html

Wow...from India's perspective, would be a tragedy if she won. Hope she is booted out.

[RajeshA]

If Barbara Boxer has said something like that, then for any Indian she is a sworn enemy. She is a decent amount of shitt, and any Indian giving her money is just as much shitt.

[abhishek_sharma]

Barabara Boxer was really mad at Condi Rice during the discussion on nuclear deal in their legislature because Indian Navy was allegedly training Iranians in Kochi. In my view, she also has a repulsive attitude and personality.

[Arjun]

^^^ On the other hand the article above might not be entirely true....US Senator denies supporting Naga Cause

[RajeshA]

If Barbara Boxer has said something like that, then for any Indian she is a sworn enemy. She is a decent amount of shitt, and any Indian giving her money is just as much shitt.

^^^ On the other hand the article above might not be entirely true....US Senator denies supporting Naga Cause

I retract my statement.

[SureshP]

Of relevance here. A PRC perspective

America Can’t Contain Us
There is no reason for China to worry over improving Indo-US ties.
Dingli Shen

American President Barack Obama’s forthcoming visit to India reverses the period of indifference with which Washington treated New Delhi and should help normalise relations between the two countries. Long before India tested its nuclear weapons in 1998, Washington would hardly hurry to appoint its ambassador to New Delhi. During the 1971 war that created Bangladesh, the United States sent its aircraft carrier, much to the disgust of the Indians. Later, following India’s “peaceful” nuclear explosion in 1974, an annoyed America established the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an export cartel aimed at, among other things, curbing India. Indeed, for a long time, “the strongest democracy” showed not much respect to the world’s “biggest democracy” because of its nuclear quest.

True, China expressed regret, reasonable though it was, over Pokhran I and Pokhran II, but it never sanctioned India, believing such methods are neither effective nor helpful to settling international disputes. Another reason for China’s stance lay in the fact that western powers had tried to contain China also through sanctions. No wonder then, even when the NSG was trying to curb India, China expressed its opposition to the NSG rules, asserting that all countries have the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.

China joined the NSG in 2004 and accepted its rules the same year. But before it joined the NSG, China insisted it wouldn’t enforce full-scope safeguards in its nuclear cooperation with those countries that hadn’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This meant that non-NPT countries weren’t required to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency access to all their domestic nuclear programmes, including those pertaining to military, before they could work with China on the civilian side. Consequently, China was able to skirt around the NSG rules to provide India low-enriched uranium in the late 1980s. In other words, China assisted India’s civilian nuclear programme two decades before the US changed its mind on the issue.

America’s distancing from India deprived the latter of adequate international assistance to power its economy. By contrast, China believed that India and other developing countries, regardless of their N-status, deserved international cooperation to improve the quality of life of their people.

The end of the cold war saw improvements in Indo-US ties—and this had a beneficial impact on international relations. However, Indo-US relations have improved not because Washington has forsaken its old mentality. Just as America was indifferent to India due its proximity to the erstwhile Soviet Union, Washington is now demonstrating greater warmth for New Delhi out of some concern over China’s rise.

Some members of the strategic community in Washington have repeatedly voiced the need to check and balance China through the strengthening of traditional alliances and fostering of new ones. America’s desire to work with India is clearly part of this game, suiting as it does both of them. The sheer momentum with which China seems to be catching up with the US has prompted it to hedge its bets and spread its risk. For New Delhi, cooperation with America is reassuring because of the ever-widening economic gap between India and China.

To be honest, should China deviate from its professed peaceful development, the ongoing rapprochement between the US and India would indeed help temper Beijing’s behaviour. Other than this, Indo-US relations have limited value. After all, India’s competitiveness fundamentally comes from its institutional innovation and economic productivity—and not mainly because of its association with the US. Similarly, America’s competitiveness and leadership originates from its own creativity, rather than from checking China through India and others.

Beijing trusts that India, which is a fount of profound wisdom, will adhere to pursuing an independent foreign policy. While a more normal Indo-US relationship is welcomed by all, it will be prudent to understand a fundamental difference between the two countries. India will not support the US policy of going to war against another country with or without the backing of the UN—as it didn’t in the case of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This underlines a fundamental divide between India and the US.

There is no reason for China to worry over improving Indo-US ties. After all, President George W. Bush visited China four times during his two terms in the White House. The US has cooperated with China, as a nuclear weapons state, on peaceful use of nuclear energy. Their cooperation wasn’t aimed at containing India. Likewise, should Obama get another term and visit India four times, Beijing won’t perceive it as a policy to contain China. Really, it is too expensive a proposition to contain too big a power as China or India.

(The author is Director, Center for American Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai)

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267725

[SureshP]

Diplomacy turbocharged
October 31st, 2010
By Neena Gopal , DC Correspondent

It’s only natural, that it would be here in the gleaming glass-fronted National Convention Centre in Hanoi, celebrating its 1,000th year and festooned with Vietnam’s national flags, that India and China’s intricate minuet should come to some kind of part denouement.

The bonhomie in Hanoi — from the elaborate courtesy shown by the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao to the host nation, the praise showered by Mr Jiabao on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over his “sagacity and wisdom”, and again, over the clinking of glasses at the high table during the gala dinner when Dr Singh was seated, interestingly, between Mr Jiabao and Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan — begs the question: In the face of India’s fledgling steps to strings its own pearls across a region long seen as China’s stomping ground, and some say egged on by the United States and Russia, has Beijing, tuned in to “understand the voices of others around the globe,” reverted from its newfound ‘frown’ diplomacy to the ‘smile’ diplomacy that won them entry into a slew of economies in the first place?

No answers as yet. But India has deftly played along. Dr Singh, borrowing a leaf from the Chinese perhaps, in mouthing platitudes in the public domain has finally moved at a surprising pace on his moribund Look East policy, tying up civil nuclear ties with Japan and South Korea, military ties with Vietnam and Malaysia, and trade and economic bonds with Singapore, South Korea and soon with Thailand and Indonesia. All, uniformly wary of the demonstrably muscular face of the new China.

Vietnam, chair of Asean, could be the starting point when the scales finally fall from Asian eyes. Vietnam stands as a bulwark at the mouth of the South China Sea, a beneficiary of Chinese largesse and investment as are other countries in the South East and East Asian region where Beijing seeks to bolster its own economy and tie the investment hungry countries into a much tighter embrace.

Vietnam is the only nation to have defeated every invader — the Mongols several centuries ago, the French, the Americans and the Chinese more recently. While it wants to be the next Asian tiger, not chary of accepting once sworn enemy

China’s help to pull itself up by the boot-straps, it is its invitation to India, the United States and Russia to the East Asian summit, that has to be seen for what it is — summoning the cavalry against the economic and sabre-rattling militaristic power of Beijing, which has in recent months, steadily upped the ante.

China has laid claim to the Spratlys, also known as the Paracel islands, held Japan to ransom by halting a supply of rare earths vital to the development of advanced technologies, and made a dramatic shift in its India policy by not only reiterating its claim to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh but weighing in on the side of Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir by offering ‘stapled’ visas to people from that state. The meeting of the Asean 10 and the six from the immediate neighbourhood — which includes India and China, and now Australia, New Zealand, Russia and the United States — is therefore, no accident.

Vietnam’s concerns, that in return for trade and development investment from China to speed up

economic recovery after years of wars, it could face an economic implosion as China manipulates its currency to create an artificial imbalance in trade, are echoed across the region.

Chinese officials have baldly told the US that the South China Sea is a “core interest” of Beijing. At the ASEAN Regional Forum Hanoi meet in July this year, nearly half the heads of the 27 delegations raised the issue. Only for the Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi to castigate and remind the Southeast Asian leaders of their economic ties with Beijing, and angrily threaten that they could be broken at any point. Sitting in the room was US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This Asean-East Asia Summit is therefore all the more an eye-opener, coming as it does just days ahead of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India on November 6, as significant a signal as Dr Manmohan Singh’s state visit to Washington in 2009, of the place that India holds in the American calculus. Ditto, the nations from this region.

India’s reaction to the Chinese bogeyman has been a carefully calibrated attempt to build its own security and trade architecture by seeking free trade agreements with all Asean states. It bears the comprehensive imprint of the Indian prime minister, who seems to publicly give the Chinese the benefit of the doubt, as do many Asian nations even in India’s South Asian backyard where there is a willingness to turn a blind eye to Beijing’s backing of Myanmar and even its moves to further nuclearise Pakistan. But not so in private.

Obama’s scepticism over China’s motives, too, have not been vocalized but they are shared by many in government who, however, are still deeply divided over whether India should tie itself further into a larger security wheel that already has Japan and Australia as the spokes. US plans to build India up as a counterweight to China, much denied all around, is no secret. Whether India has the moxy to take its newly rejigged Look East policy to its logical conclusion and be able to emulate and counter China’s smart power — even with the Americans holding our hands — is, however, the real question.

Rare earths & pouring rain

While in Japan, India moved quickly to offer to supply Japan rare earths, a group of 17 minerals that are vital for the manufacture of a wide range of sophisticated electronic items, industrial and military equipment. One such rare earth, Neodymium, is the reason why audio company Bose is able its tiny jewel-cube speakers. India’s offer came in the wake of attempts by China, which currently mines 97 per cent of the world’s supply of rare earths, to deny those minerals to Japan, the US and other big consumers — a move that was immediately described as the new “Great Game”. Until 1948, India and Brazil were the world’s main contributors of rare earths. By offering rare earths to Japan, India not only sought to revive that position, it also managed to soften Japan on a civil nuclear deal.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/360-degr ... harged-024

[SaiK]

I want the china model for Indian villages.. with all products in Walmart shelf marked : "Made in Indian Village" would be a great thing to do. We should ban outsourcing to cities or within 100 miles city limits for this PURA purpose.

Can we engage this with the khans?

[svinayak]

If Barbara Boxer has said something like that, then for any Indian she is a sworn enemy. She is a decent amount of shitt, and any Indian giving her money is just as much shitt.

She is part of the EJ groups and there is large Burmese Karen lobby which supports her.
Connect the geo graphy of those area and you can get the picture.

Kerry takes care of the Kashmir, POK and those regions and interacts with the lobby group.

[SwamyG]

SwamyG:

I did in spurts. It won't make a ball of a difference. Tea party Nazis will romp home on Tuesday. I will be really sad if senator Harry Reid looses in Nevada to that Nazi b$%^&ch Sharon Engle. He is a decent guy. Ditto Senator Barbara Boxer in CA to that pompous ex HP CEO who was booted out, Carly Fiorina. And above all, it would be the ultimate disgracing of US democracy of that tea party bbimbo dim-wit Christine O'Donnell pulls it off in Delaware. Thoo.

I agree it will not make a difference. Corporatism is too entrenched in human lives. A routine inspection of this morning's cable programs point out that cable media just does not care for its role. They again were discussing what this means for the Dems and elections. They miss the point or just don't care. The lack of dharma is alarming.

Of all the people, Fareed Zakaria an immigrant, seems to have a better program. I have been boycotting CNN for more than a year now, and I hate it when Fareed cajoles me to watch his program.

Indeed, but as I mentioned many a times, when it comes to India & TSP, or foreign affairs in general, dems == reps.

Some BRFites just do not get this. It is so sad.

[CRamS]

If only Indians exist in US consciousness, let alone respect, and that too only a tiny fraction of the near fatal attraction, the fawning respect Indians have for US; we wouldn't be seeing this gory spectacle of US giving billions to TSP terrorists and claiming to be an ally of India.

[Johann]

There are a lot of points on which I concur with Rajeev Srinivasan, but I think there is an element of hyperbole that I sense in some of the points he makes. Let me debunk them. I challenge anyone, including the gentle but pedantic Johann or AmberJi who thinks my understanding of US is hollow, to prove me wrong.

...With all due respect to Rajeev Srinivasan , all of the above claims he makes are nothing but unadulterated nonsense. I don't want to dwell too much on US politics, but Obama has done the best he can on both domestic and foreign affairs in a short span of less than 2 years. Look at the situation objectively. From a state of total economic collapse in late 2008, he has stabilized the situation. On both Iraq & Afghanistan, he is upholding US interests, in the former, the Iraqi oil is in US kitty, and Israel faces no threat from a lame duck Iraq; and in the latter, AfPak while still uncertain, is not yet a lost cause and a work in progress. All that US is looking for is some H&D that they did better than the Russians. They have to show that they "defeated" the Taliban but the Russians tucked their tail between their legs and ran. Its laughable to claim that a a rag tag bunch of so called Al Queda doing rope tricks in Kabul poses a threat to mainland USA. And if MMS sells India down the Indus river, as he might very well will, AfPak will be a victory for Obama and US in that with Taliban in power, TSP will ensure that those so called Al Queda not attack US, while TSP is free to use its LET assets against India.

As I mentioned many times, as brilliant as Obama is, he is an artificial president. As a black guy, if he dare plays out his liberal, egalitarian instincts, his ass will be roasted by the white racist conservatives even more than it is now. Basically, he is a Clinton redux; following the likes of the brilliant Larry Summer & Co on economy, and the Zbieg/NotBrighht type approach to foreign affairs. And in this worldview, India is a not even a 2-bit player, except to elicit some pity and sympathy for being screwed by none other than US in the manner in which GWOT is being orchestrated with India being the sacrificial goat to please TSP. And of course, its the proverbial Indian containment at work.

Bottom line: The reason why his party (democrats) will lose include: 1) The nature of US politics, it is by design, a sitting president always suffers during mid-term, recall Clinton in 1994, and 2) the white conservatives’ hatred of a black guy at the helm and they have managed to use some peripheral politically correct issues to talk in code words ("liberal", "socialist", "big govt" and other nonsense).

And finally, please, I am sick & tired of even intelligent guys like Rajeev Srinivasan claiming that America is broke and Americans are running for their lives. Look at the billions of $s US is doling out to TSP. Give me a f$%&ing break.

But let me re-iterate that I agree with a lot of other things Rajeev Srinivasan says. I am not so sure of any November surprise though. But notice that MMS has indeed fallen in line with US diktats, he doesn't even talk about Mumbai anymore, he is so anxious to meet TSP more than halfway. So who knows, Rajeev Srinivasan may be right on India's impending surrender.

CRS, you really shouldn't think I disagree with everything you write.

In any case, I do agree that America is not preparing to cede the centre-stage of global politics. People assumed this in the Ford and Carter years as well as Clinton's first term.

America does face enormous, long-term structural economic problems with underlying roots in social conditions and policy (see Rajan's excellent book "Faultlines")

At the same time it still enjoys some of the greatest concentrations of natural resources, a large and still growing population, and the best environment for innovation in the world.

The American establishment is nowhere close to concluding that the costs exceed the benefits of investing in its position as the guarantor of globalisation. This is despite the fact that globalisation is something that many working class, and now older middle class Americans are starting to lose faith in.

America can not disengage from the region as long as global jihad wants to kill Americans, and they will want to kill Americans as long as the US upholds the status quo in Muslim World. The debate is really over what is the most politically and economic sustainable form of this American engagement. Obama hasn't been able to settle on an answer because he is NOT an ideas man (as his oratory makes him out to be), but rather a pragmatic broker, and at this time the US policy establishment is hugely divided.

Srinivasan is very wrong about the Obama administration's approach with Pakistan. There is a conflict between the US and Pakistan over the Pakistan Army's jihadi clients in Af-Pak, and it has been steadily escalating since 2008, and it will continue to escalate. The PA is sure the Obama admin will back down, but they underestimate just how powerful that drive it are. The same is true of the Obama administrations misconceptions about the drivers of PA policy, which they assume is mostly about India-related issues.

To make an inflammatory comparison its like trying to domesticate an aggressive and feral dog. You cant avoid conflict when trying to discipline it, but you don't want to kill it or drive it away. The pressures on Pakistan are multiplying, and the easy option would be to use Kashmir, Siachen, the water disputes, etc as bones to prevent complete rupture.

The Bush Administration's clear views on India's role as a technological and economic partner on the global level, and as a strategic partner in the Pacific restrained this, but Obama's team are very fractured. There is no comprehensive 'big picture', which is why Indians should be on the lookout for short term thinking when it comes to India.

On the other hand it should not write off Obama. Since he is a broker without a tight ideological foreign policy circle the members of his team are going to keep changing based on their ability to generate results without causing political embarrassment. It can go in a number of different directions, and its too early to tell. Neither optimism, nor pessimism is the sensible response to this uncertainty, but rather attentiveness and thoughtfulness.

[ShivaS]

Some times we have to buy Boxer when briefs dont work!

[AKalam]

Just turned in 3 mail-in votes for Boxer today, I guess dem cats are better than republi cats.

[anjan]

If only Indians exist in US consciousness, let alone respect, and that too only a tiny fraction of the near fatal attraction, the fawning respect Indians have for US; we wouldn't be seeing this gory spectacle of US giving billions to TSP terrorists and claiming to be an ally of India.

What fawning respect? I see a businesman wanting to create new busines opportunities(infrastructure in the US) and keep existing markets. To do so he's willing to use, or misuse as it may be, the truth that Indians in general do/did lookup to the work ethic and culture that made the US an economic superpower. The last two people in that article merely question the current US position. There is no shame in being better informed about another country. Not being better informed is no badge of honor either and reflects more on the US than it does on India.

[asprinzl]

Folks....before any of you expect even a single outsider to either respect or care or even willing to listen to what Indians have to say.....Indians themselves must first love, respect and care for fellow Indians and India. I have not travelled extensively in India but have made several trips beginning from the time of Indira Gandhi's assasination......have family in various parts of India. Simple civic responsibility is missing. If Indians don't have that for fellow Indians and India, no foreigner would give two hoots other than to loot. Please don't think that this is a flaming post.
Avram.

[ShivaS]

Shalom.
That’s exactly how I feel too. The ruling elite stills thinks it is working for East India company.
My private company managers ooze so much arrogance towards subordinates its just unbelievable.

I dont think despite my small efforts I can make a difference.

[ShyamSP]

If Barbara Boxer has said something like that, then for any Indian she is a sworn enemy. She is a decent amount of shitt, and any Indian giving her money is just as much shitt.

She is part of the EJ groups and there is large Burmese Karen lobby which supports her.
Connect the geo graphy of those area and you can get the picture.

Kerry takes care of the Kashmir, POK and those regions and interacts with the lobby group.

Thanks to timely reminder. voted against her.

Barbara Boxer is not a fan of India due to our relations with Iran.

That is not correct. My guess is she is anti-India because of her lobby interests and nothing inherent in her.
If she loses (less likely though), her entrenched lobby will lose interest in her and things might change.
Carly Fiorina is better option (she is mostly useless lady though) to shake the applecart.

[svinayak]

That’s exactly how I feel too. The ruling elite stills thinks it is working for East India company.

Some of the MNCs and Americans have learnt the same thing and follow the same policy. They ask the fellow Indians about the other Indians. Depending on the answer they will decide on how to treat the other person.

[CRamS]

What fawning respect? I see a businesman wanting to create new busines opportunities(infrastructure in the US) and keep existing markets. To do so he's willing to use, or misuse as it may be, the truth that Indians in general do/did lookup to the work ethic and culture that made the US an economic superpower. The last two people in that article merely question the current US position. There is no shame in being better informed about another country. Not being better informed is no badge of honor either and reflects more on the US than it does on India.

Nothing wrong with business per se, but I would have expected one of those guys to have the strategic big picture in mind. At least that Dhuptta dude. Nothing wrong with qestioning US support to a terrorist entity targeting India. Thats my point.

[abhishek_sharma]

Shaped by the future
K. Subrahmanyam

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Shape ... ure/705376

[Pratyush]

As already reported in major media, this visit is all about economics with no strategic value. Even on the economic side, India is giving away increased access in agriculture, defence etc, and there doesn't appear to be much that we are getting in return.

This is all about Obama proudly stating he got more market access. India will get nothing out of his visit. With a weak opposition, there isn't much for the MMS govt to fear.

Have no fear, we are getting an empowered TSP. which will soon launch a major offincive against India using the arms recieved from the Khans and paid by Indian Money.

[SwamyG]

One expects a dog to bark, a cat to "meow", a cow to "moo", a human to "whine"; foreign leaders have their own agenda (or Corporate agenda for some Western countries) and will do what they have to do. The onus always rests on Indian leaders for them to do what is best for the country. Are they doing it? Will they do it? Of course these are different debates.

[amdavadi]

I couldnt get my self to vote for BB so voted for CF.

BB & DF are well known for anti-desh attitude.

[krisna]

Shaped by the future
K. Subrahmanyam

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Shape ... ure/705376

some selected quotes--

Perhaps the most appropriate way of looking at it is the one put forward by the National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon in an address to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington: “The visit offers us an opportunity to put into place a longer term framework for the India-US strategic partnership and add content to that partnership in several areas that are now ripe... In today’s international situation India-US relations are an important factor for world peace, stability and progress. An open, balanced and inclusive security architecture in Asia and the world would be a goal that is in our common interest. So too would be the rules of the road (or codes of conduct) for the global commons, developed internationally through a democratic process of consultation and negotiations... Traditionally India and the US have viewed each other across the Eurasian landmass and the Atlantic Ocean. We get a different perspective if we look across the Pacific, across a space we share and that is vital to the security and prosperity of our two countries. Apart from changing geopolitics the emergence of new transnational and global threats also brings us together.”

What are these transnational and global threats?

The transnational threats are religious extremism, terrorism in support of such extremism, organised crime including drug traffic, pandemics and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

About China threat

The challenge arising out of assertiveness and expansionism of a rapidly rising, non-democratic China feeling the pressures of enveloping international democratic culture on its own knowledge-acquiring population in the information age and its use of nuclear proliferation to counter the influence of democracies is coming into stark recognition. China proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan and North Korea and missile technology also to Iran and Saudi Arabia. In turn Pakistan has used nuclear deterrence as a shield to use terrorism as a state policy employing non-state actors against India, the US and the UK. Nuclear deterrence has been used by illegitimate regimes to resist externally induced regime changes. Attempting to counter the influence of India, the US, Russia and Japan in Asia and to emerge as the foremost power first in Asia and then in the world, China has used Pakistan and North Korea as launchpads for expanding its influence in South, West and Central Asia and on the Asian-Pacific rim.

India happens to be the arena where both the one-party authoritarianism of China viewing the pluralism and democracy of India as a challenge and religious extremism-inspired jihadi terrorism of Pakistan intersect and there have been expressions of views in both countries against the unity and integrity of India. The US, India, the European Union, Russia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Brazil,Mexico, Canada, Philippines and Australia are pluralistic, secular democracies. Along with Japan and South Korea, which are secular democracies, these nations and a union (there may be other nations eligible to be included in this list) constitute half of the world’s population. This is the first time in human history that such a high percentage of the world’s population lives under democratic rule.

Some of them also have chinese economic (possibly military) imprints despite being democratic
About India US meet--

The success of the summit will depend on the progress they make in harnessing the shared strengths of the two countries for the defence of pluralism, secularism and democracy. The main hurdle they face is the Cold War-Non-Alignment mindset of the political establishments, bureaucracies, media and academia in both countries.

How India and US can benefit from each other!

Towards this end, the democratic world cannot afford to allow authoritarian China to become the foremost power of the world overtaking the US. If the Americans do not want to lose their technological, financial and organisational pre-eminence (they cannot remain number one by GDP by 2050) they need a democratic and English-speaking partner which can offset the Chinese numerical superiority in outproducing the scientists, engineers and technicians in the coming years and act as a talent reservoir. That can only be India.
If India wants to narrow the gap with China it needs the same kind of support the US extended to China from the ‘80s onwards to make China the factory of the world. Clean energy generation, energy efficient products, energy conservation, green style of life and agricultural revolution necessitated by climate change together will call for a new industrial revolution in the coming decades. Knowledge will be the currency of power in that world. Pluralistic and democratic societies will have an advantage in terms of creativity and innovativeness. Formulating the first initial steps in the strategy of leading the international community towards that world order should occupy the joint attention of the two leaders in the forthcoming summit.

KS has been consistently advocating closer relations between India and US. hope India is careful and not fall into a trap with US in its policies. be independent and act independent despite closer relations.

[krisna]

Walker's World: Obama in India

The White House has been at great pains to explain that President Barack Obama's visit to India this week is all about jobs and trade. But nobody in Asia believes it.

With China canceling a planned summit with Japan's prime minister, Kashmir erupting again , Afghanistan sinking deeper into disaster and Iran loading fuel rods into its new nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the Asian security agenda looks considerably more compelling.

And yet Obama is hoping to save some Democratic congressional seats from the likely wreckage in this week's mid-term elections, so the propaganda about jobs makes a kind of sense.

India helping Ombaba party in US local elections.In return what will India get-- lot of words!!

As a result, he is taking the biggest entourage of top businessmen ever to grace a presidential trip.
A jumbo jet full of chief executive officers, some 250 at last count, will be joining Obama's own entourage of family, six armored cars and a total of 40 aircraft on the Indian mission, chasing deals.

what are the deals---

Ron Somers of the U.S. India Business Council is talking of more than $10 billion being signed in contracts next week, bringing with them 100,000 U.S. jobs.
GE thinks it has sewn up a $5 billion order to supply locomotives for Indian Railways. American hopes of providing India's new generation of advanced fighter jets may not come to fruition(which aircraft-??European ones just speculating) but Boeing is confident of a $6 billion sale of C-17 military cargo and another $2.5 billion in commercial jets to India's flourishing budget airlines.

noting that India is the second-fastest growing inward investor to America.

The United States and India are each investing more than $10 billion a year into the other country and bilateral trade is running at $43 billion a year. That's good but it's not much more than 10 percent of U.S.-China trade.

The really tricky negotiations will be over geo-politics. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been at pains last week to stress that the United States didn't see China as an adversary. But there is little doubt that the United States, as the world's most powerful democracy, sees India, the most populous and fastest-growing democracy, as a natural ally against an authoritarian and potentially aggressive China.

Any article about India cannot be complete with the usual pakiness inserted in it--

But Obama must tread softly. His administration's regional envoy Richard Holbrooke got off to a bad start when India made it clear that it was no longer prepared to be seen through the traditional Indo-Pakistan perspective.(still applying balm to his sorry musharraf) India is bigger than that now and has never welcomed any outside interest in its troubles in Kashmir. it should continue forever) Yet Pakistan remains crucial to the embattled U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
"The U.S. sees Pakistan as an indispensable but dishonest partner,"( whore is doing its normal duties, but uncle sees TSP as its own hence the dishonest feeling in uncle's mind) suggested Pakistani commentator Imtiaz Gul, on a visit to Washington last week. "Pakistan has its own worries about the waning U.S. commitment in Afghanistan. It's a war between the short-term American agenda and Pakistan's long-term national interests."

Nor does India want to be taken for granted as a strategic ally in Asia, in part because India knows that it has much healthier long-term demographics than China. If China will be challenging the United States for the No. 1 economic slot around the year 2030, India thinks it could be the challenger by 2050.

Bush, who also saw India as America's key ally in Asia against a rising China, set a positive course, and it will be up to Obama to use his personal charm to maintain and extend it. The problem is that he looks like arriving in India as a loser, as a defeated leader of the Democratic Party after a humiliating loss in Congress, and with a big question mark over his power to get things done in Washington over the next two years.

India to bail out ombaba and his party. GOI ready with red carpet welcome. what a come down for uncle.

[CRamS]

CRS, you really shouldn't think I disagree with everything you write.

No boss, absolutely not, but I must say at times, you use way too erudite and abstract notions to explain something obvious. Its like proving 1 = 1 using trigonometry and logarithms and calculus and number theory etc .

America does face enormous, long-term structural economic problems with underlying roots in social conditions and policy (see Rajan's excellent book "Faultlines")

Yes, but compared to the rest of the world, US still reigns supreme and way ahead in terms of its ability to project power. Of course, there needs to be a mid course correction; after all, one can't have a 3-car garage home and high-definition TV sets in every room just by borrowing ad nauseum. Don't tell me for a second that all its 1000s and 1000s of nukes in its basement are for doing pooja. If need be, especially with tea party Nazis in power, they will do any number of Hiroshima & Nagasakis to bring home the bacon. Lets be clear about that.

At the same time it still enjoys some of the greatest concentrations of natural resources, a large and still growing population, and the best environment for innovation in the world.

Exactly. And in addition to what I said above, I am not yet prepared to shed tears or write a swan song for the demise of USA's global empire. Its here to stay for the foreseeable fture.

The American establishment is nowhere close to concluding that the costs exceed the benefits of investing in its position as the guarantor of globalisation. This is despite the fact that globalisation is something that many working class, and now older middle class Americans are starting to lose faith in.

Lets cut through the chase. There is nothing called "globalization" per se. Its about Americanization. And so long as the rest of the world, especially, Chinese, other East Asians, and increasingly Indians etc were consuming coke, eating pizza, listening to Madonna, Americans loved it because they were making money. But when the rest of the world started showing hints of making their own pizza and their own coke which competed with American versions, then of course, all notions of globalization go out of the window. And it assumes a tea party Nazisque narrative when US companies started to realize that instead of selling US made coke & pizza, its way cheaper to make Indians and Chinese make US coke and pizza locally. This naturally means that the joe-six pack in US has to work that bit harder to get his 3-car garage home, six pack, football, and weekend female company. Easier way out, or so he thinks, is to join the tea party and blame somebody else or Obama’s closet Muslim faith.

America can not disengage from the region as long as global jihad wants to kill Americans, and they will want to kill Americans as long as the US upholds the status quo in Muslim World.

This is absolute, unadulterated, pedantic nonsense. There is no such thing as an Omni-potent global Jihad out to get US. US is at war with certain sections of Muslims on account of their policies. Principle among them is the installation of the neo colonial state of Israel driving out the original inhabitants, the Palestinians, from their home land, to atone for the sins of Europeans. If any country faces jihad, it is India through jihad sponsored by TSP. The very existential danger that India faces from a relentless TSP cannot be compared to random acts of Islamic terror that US faces.

Srinivasan is very wrong about the Obama administration's approach with Pakistan. There is a conflict between the US and Pakistan over the Pakistan Army's jihadi clients in Af-Pak, and it has been steadily escalating since 2008, and it will continue to escalate. The PA is sure the Obama admin will back down, but they underestimate just how powerful that drive it are. The same is true of the Obama administrations misconceptions about the drivers of PA policy, which they assume is mostly about India-related issues.

I disagree with you. Srinivasan is correct, and so am I. No need to rehash what is said here often, but US dalliance with TSPA has got to do as much with Indian containment as it has to get out of AfPak with its H&D intact.

Neither optimism, nor pessimism is the sensible response to this uncertainty, but rather attentiveness and thoughtfulness.

We said. First & foremost, what is needed is a change in leadership in Delhi. Someone with more nationalist pride and cojones, more attuned to India's history and civilization.

[ramana]

My one comment on KS garu's article is that PRC is not a traditional Westphalian state. In China its the central authority (State) that keeps the nation together. Hence regradless of the nature of the state its existence is what keeps the country together. And when there is weak state in China historically it has been a disaster for Central and East Asia. So it does not matter on the nature of the state in China. What is needed is a state that cares for its nation as the Tang and Ming dynasties did.

[arjunm]

Pioneer's editorial desk-

[quote][/quote]
A two-year wonder?
November 01, 2010 9:57:09 PM

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Angry Americans give up on Obama

The days of wine and roses are over and US President Barack Obama stands stripped of the aura that propelled him to office two years ago. Many of the Obama myths, not all of them spun by his campaign managers, stand exposed as that much fiction and no more; there is a distinct air of disenchantment among America’s chattering classes who had mistaken cleverly worded slogans for political commitment and seen ‘hope’ in a vacuous promise — “Yes we can!” was never elevated to “Yes we shall!” Instead of demonstrating his claimed abilities to pull America out of its downward economic slide and restoring ‘values’ and ‘morals’ — the Democrats are never short of either and are prone to waxing eloquent on both while hectoring others — to domestic and foreign policies, he has failed on both fronts. Contrary to popular expectations and his carefully nurtured public image, Mr Obama has turned out to be anything but a ‘thinking’ President; indeed, his critics would call him ‘shallow’. He is indecisive, depends on others to take the call and simply lacks the chutzpah without which an American President is no different from the President of one of its client states. Mr Obama thought he would bowl over Muslims around the world and have the Islamists eating out of his hands. He tried to ‘reach out’ to the ‘Muslim world’ by denouncing all that his predecessor did (or stood for), in all fairness, not to raise his stature but to protect America’s interests. While delivering his Cairo lecture, he glossed over inconvenient facts of history to justify Arab belligerence towards Israel. Nobody, least of all the Arabs, remembers that lecture today. He sought to secure Pakistan’s gratitude by plying that country with more aid than its corrupt Generals and terror-sponsoring institutions could pocket. It’s not surprising that Gen Pervez Musharraf is willing to risk his life and limb by wanting to hop onto the Washington-Islamabad-Rawalpindi gravy train. The gravy was not as tempting during the Bush Administration years as it has been ever since Mr Obama came to power. Yet, the regular despatch of billion-dollar cheques, the unending supply of arms and ammunition, and the willingness to do business with the Taliban and other assorted criminals have not quite endeared Mr Obama to the Pakistanis. As for Afghanistan, he is seen as a loser by both Pakhtuns and non-Pakhtuns; a wimp who confuses policy waffle with action on the ground. Elsewhere in the world, including in its backyard and among its trans-Atlantic allies, Mr Obama does not really matter, nor does the US count for much.

If the Republicans trounce the Democrats in tomorrow’s elections, and seize the Senate and House majorities, even by the narrowest of margins, then Mr Obama will be reduced to, let’s face it, a lame-duck President. Congress will threaten to spike his proposals; he will threaten to veto the Congress’s objections; Congress will dare him; and so it will continue. A year can be a very short time in American politics: By the end of 2011, Mr Obama will have to get into re-election mode. But that’s the tricky bit. There are already indications that the Democrats may not want to field their wonder boy for a second term. An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll conducted during the mid-term campaign shows that Democratic voters are “closely divided over whether Mr Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012”. That “glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Mr Obama should be a one-term President”. These are still early days and politics can take strange, un-anticipated twists and turns. But the fact that the proverbial knight in shining armour should find himself staring at the very real possibility of being hoisted off his steed in so unceremonious a manner cannot but be discomfiting for Mr Obama and his fast diminishing-ranks of dreamy-eyed supporters.
Email | Print | Rate: 12345
http://www.dailypioneer.com/293513/A-tw ... onder.html

[Pulikeshi]

Ramana,

Stating the obvious perhaps...
The US is interested in India playing a role to the East.
However, the US needs to be sensitive to Indian interest to the West.

[svinayak]

If the Republicans trounce the Democrats in tomorrow’s elections, and seize the Senate and House majorities, even by the narrowest of margins, then Mr Obama will be reduced to, let’s face it, a lame-duck President. Congress will threaten to spike his proposals; he will threaten to veto the Congress’s objections; Congress will dare him; and so it will continue. A year can be a very short time in American politics: By the end of 2011, Mr Obama will have to get into re-election mode.

If this happens will Pakistan loose support from the US establishment and will be put in low profile.
No more money to keep their man in I bad.
He sought to secure Pakistan’s gratitude by plying that country with more aid than its corrupt Generals and terror-sponsoring institutions could pocket. It’s not surprising that Gen Pervez Musharraf is willing to risk his life and limb by wanting to hop onto the Washington-Islamabad-Rawalpindi gravy train. The gravy was not as tempting during the Bush Administration years as it has been ever since Mr Obama came to power. Yet, the regular despatch of billion-dollar cheques, the unending supply of arms and ammunition, and the willingness to do business with the Taliban and other assorted criminals have not quite endeared Mr Obama to the Pakistanis.

[A_Gupta]

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/11/01/co ... relations/

To Americans, India can be a real jumble of contradictions. It is a maritime nation—strategically situated near key chokepoints—but with a continental strategic tradition. It is a nation of illustrious mercantile traditions but for decades walled off large swaths of its economy.
....
.....why are the U.S. and India so bogged down in (and over) continental Asia?

....it is maritime, not continental, Asia that is now the world’s center of economic and geopolitical gravity. So at a moment when India’s own foreign policy has burst the confining boundaries of its South Asian strategic geography, Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would do well to focus greater attention there—and perhaps search for a new “big idea” by connecting several policy initiatives across a series baskets, including energy, seaborne trade, finance, the global commons, and regional architecture.

Continental Asia has been an arena for U.S.-India disagreement, even rancor. But maritime Asia offers natural affinities of interest—and the opportunity to turn common interests into complementary policies.

[abhishek_sharma]

Obama visit: Relief unlikely in outsourcing of jobs

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 853537.cms

[negi]

^ More important than outsourcing

Viswanathan, Distinguished Fellow, ORF, who chaired the event, said the US leadership should realise that the interests of Indian diaspora and India may not be the same.

[abhishek_sharma]

‘UNSC seat a foolish idea’

http://www.hindustantimes.com/UNSC-seat ... 20903.aspx

[abhishek_sharma]

Go Small and Stay Home
With an opposition Congress coming soon, Obama would be wise to resist the temptation of becoming a foreign-policy president.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

[abhishek_sharma]

No pact likely on US commercial satellite launch by ISRO

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/No-pa ... SRO/705828

[abhishek_sharma]

Ronen Sen interview

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-u ... t/705872/0

Shekhar Gupta: That’s unusual for a diplomat because diplomacy is all about form and style and process and note verbale and non-papers and French and Latin.

Ronen Sen: I think today it’s different. For instance, there is central focus on economics, what is known as economic diplomacy. I don’t think foreign and defence policies can be seen in isolation. If you look at 1987, for instance. India had the worst drought of the century, you also had your troops in Sri Lanka.


Shekhar Gupta: Absolutely. You had Operation Brasstacks and Chinese checkers Sumdorong Chu. It was one of the most insecure years in our history. And Bofors also broke that year.

Ronen Sen: Yes, Bofors, Pay Commission. The next year, when people saw Rajiv Gandhi at the Great Wall of China and that long handshake with Deng Xiaoping, they didn’t relate it to dal-roti issues.

Shekhar Gupta: India’s problems.

Ronen Sen: Even financial aspects. If you move a brigade to have a border free of incidents, that’s a big step economically. Or where you didn’t have at that time a supply of AWACS aircraft from the United States, it was not accidental.

Shekhar Gupta: You mean AWACS not going to Pakistan?

Ronen Sen: Yes.

Shekhar Gupta: And you were behind all that badmaashi?

Ronen Sen: Well, it was a private communication.

Shekhar Gupta: Tell us about it.

Ronen Sen: Rajiv Gandhi had an excellent equation with President Reagan and the age difference...it was almost an uncle-nephew type of thing. Once there were no cameras, once everyone had left the room—I mean, we are part of the wallpaper, we don’t exist—you saw an instant change in the person, a deep affection. It’s quite incredible to see their personal equation and those things did help.

Shekhar Gupta: The reason we start with Rajiv and Reagan is that in a week, President Obama comes to India. And people don’t quite know where to pick up the thread on the changes in the India-US relationship after almost 30 years of hostility. And I’m amazed that you begin with Rajiv Gandhi.

Ronen Sen: Actually, we must go back a little bit earlier to Indira Gandhi.

Shekhar Gupta: I have had a view that when Mrs Gandhi came back to power in 1980, she decided on a paradigm shift. That’s something for which we give Manmohan Singh and Narasimha Rao credit, but it started with her.

Ronen Sen: Absolutely. When Mrs Indira Gandhi returned to power, the first thing she faced was the issue of Afghanistan—the Soviets moving into Afghanistan. She made it very clear that time. She told General Secretary Brezhnev, look, we are not going to join the international chorus (of condemnation) against you, but you should know that this move will have an adverse impact on our security for a long time to come. Both you and the Americans have relatively short attention spans, you’ll both leave eventually. But we’ll both be living this mess and picking up the pieces for a long time to come.

Shekhar Gupta: That’s precisely what Dr Singh could be telling Obama this time. And then?

Ronen Sen: Well, then she made a conscious decision...

Shekhar Gupta: How did Brezhnev react to this?

Ronen Sen: He was fumbling for words. I felt a little sorry because he had a deep affection for India, and also a deep personal empathy with Mrs Indira Gandhi. But in these circumstances...she took a clinical view. Her decision was to visit the United States before visiting the Soviet Union. In fact, she deliberately violated protocol and did something unthinkable. When Reagan was elected President, she sent B K Nehru on a personal mission to California with a personal letter of congratulations, much before he had assumed office. So that was an extraordinary gesture.

Shekhar Gupta: So what you are saying is that the end of the Cold War had been anticipated by Mrs Gandhi in 1980 and then Rajiv subsequently?

Ronen Sen: Yes, in fact there were other developments too. By 1988, we got some indication that all was not well in the Soviet Union. We didn’t know it was going to collapse so rapidly like a house of cards. But you know the cracks were showing at that time and we had enough indications of that. In fact, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had written a personal letter to Gorbachev, a long letter, on our system of government, how we have a federal system of government, how you don’t let pressure points build up. But in a very gentle manner, not to give a lecture. Certainly not patronising, certainly not “I know better than you”, it was just a correspondence, conversation, you might say.

[ramana]

Nice BS. It was another junior officer in Rao's time who anticipated the collapse of FSU. He used to ravel with PVNR. And here Sen Babu is claiming credit.