India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[ramana]

Obama's diplomatic masterstroke in India

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... e_in_india

I guess Rothkopf hasn't heard the inside scoop. Per NPR commentators the seat being offered is without veto and there is a long line of others to be also accommodated:Japan, Germany, Brazil and all have folks who oppose it. So its another bogus offer.

[jrjrao]

Exactly. As in meaningless. Here is Op-Ed guru Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times saying the same thing:

... that was a throwaway line. It just won’t happen... So it’s a nice applause line in Delhi, but don’t expect more.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/

[abhishek_sharma]

India, Security Council reactions

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... _reactions

The great thing for the other permanent members is that nobody has to be the spoiler here; the General Assembly's disunity is the spoiler. Until a consensus plan emerges, the big five can stand by and piously wait.

[svinayak]

there are 3 implicit prerequisites to be a member of of the UNSC permanent members (notice "security")

- big money
- nukes
- geostrategical influence

All current members have those 3 at different levels

Japan has only one, money, geostrategically it's castrated, cannot even kick out the US from Okinawa.

India meets basically the 3 today, at least two (money, nukes and is at least geostrategically locally important).

if Brazil had nukes (probably a matter of time) if would be in a similar situation.

Germany is very similar to Japan, with the advantage that its membership in the EU gives it a huge geostrategical advantage. Besides it's current culture of democracy is far better than the more or less corrupted Japanese tradition.

[Juggi G]

Horsing Around

Horsing Around : If wishes were horses, President Obama would like to take home some of the stately equines at Rashtrapati Bhavan. While entering the majestic (erstwhile vice-regal) palace for a ceremonial welcome, Obama looked impressed by the smart turnout of the elite Presidential body guards (PBG) who escorted him to the forecourt where he was received by President Pratibha Patil and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

During his chat with the President, he praised the PBGs and said, in a lighter vein, that He wanted to Take Home some Camels and Horses . It was enough make the hostess smile, said an official accompanying the VVIPs.

The 30 camel-mounted BSF personnel had played bugles and trumpets on Sunday during a private dinner being hosted in his honour by the prime minister at 7, RCR.
Obama Described the Music by the Camel Band as Spectacular.

[jrjrao]

Not sure if this piece of Op-Ed garbage was held in abeyance by the NY Times, until it was timed perfectly with Obama's departure from the dehli hawaii adda.

But the intent of NY Times, in publishing this, and timing this, is malicious indeed.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Kashmir’s Fruits of Discord
By ARUNDHATI ROY
Published: November 8, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/opinion/09roy.html

With this op-ed, Arundhati Roy's sorry behind should be hauled to strict court proceedings, not for the usual garbage here, but for the very specific, and very horrifically wrong, libel about the alleged, and then subsequently proven wrong (by exhumation), twin Shopian deaths of last year.

This woman lies, plain and simple. No wonder the NY Times publishes her, like it does Pee Mishara.

[Juggi G]

Obama's 'Bahut Dhanyawad' Remarks Floor MPs



Singh Roars on Kashmir, Outsourcing

[Johann]

However,I do differ somewhat about the ability of the Islamic street to influence matters in the ME region.It has actually grown immeasurably.See how Hamas and the Hiz have taken over from the moderates threatening Israel.Whether Sunni or Shiite,the street is on the march,especially in Iraq,where the influence of Iran is escalating.

Philip,

Hamas (i.e. the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood) and Hezb'allah are Islamist groups that have embraced the rhetoric of jihad, but they are *not* transnational and global.

They aren't running off to fight America in Afghanistan & Iraq, or India in Kashmir, or Russia in Chechnya, the Philippines in Mindanao, Ethiopians in Somalia, etc. They do not see fighting for the entire ummah as their responsibility even if they are sympathetic.

Hamas will fight ONLY for Palestine, and Hezb'allah will fight for Lebanon, and *perhaps* its neighboring allies in Palestine and Syria, although after the devastation of 2006 Nasrallah has backed off from adventures on behalf of others.

Both movements were well consolidated at the grassroots in the 1980s and 1990s, long before 9/11. Unlike the global jihad, these kinds of movements offer a lot more than a choice between being killed as a traitor or dying a martyr- they build and run quality schools and hospitals for all, as well as a social safety net for the poor. This is what *really* builds loyalty and gives them opportunities for lifelong indoctrination.

The greatest factor in the rise of Hamas has been the loss of credibility of the PLO with many Palestinians who see them as both internally corrupt and externally weak in defending Palestinian national interests.

Hamas, Hezb'allah, the Pakistani Army, etc are all Islamic nationalists, and these are much more formidable foes in the long run than the global jihad. That's because they are better at mobilising and sustaining support (Islamism+nationalism), which is what makes them a threat with staying power.

[CRamS]

Not sure if this piece of Op-Ed garbage was held in abeyance by the NY Times, until it was timed perfectly with Obama's departure from the dehli hawaii adda.

But the intent of NY Times, in publishing this, and timing this, is malicious indeed.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Kashmir’s Fruits of Discord
By ARUNDHATI ROY
Published: November 8, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/opinion/09roy.html

Wonder if NYT will publish her views on Israel, on war in Iraq and Bush's role, the crap she doled out after 9/11 etc.

[svinayak]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... end-presid

Joe Scarborough: Opponents of Obama's India Trip Are 'Idiots; ' Would Send President There 'Once A Month' If He Could
By Matt Hadro | November 08, 2010 | 15:15

Anyone critical of President Obama being in India right now is an "idiot," MSNBC's Joe Scarborough bluntly served on his morning show, which prides itself on being a safe haven for different views. India is "exactly where [President Obama] should be" right now, he opined.

With Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass on as a guest Monday morning, Scarborough clamored that President Obama "needs" to be in India right now for the sake of U.S. foreign policy. "I would send my President to India, like once a month, if I could, for long weekends," he emphasized.

Scarborough hit left-wing bloggers earlier on the show for helping push President Obama's agenda too far to the left. Now he took the chance to slam the far right for what he considers unfair criticism of the President. "I was just going to say, any right-wing bloggers out there that are critical of the President being in India – anybody – is an idiot," he stated.


"They have their head in the sand, they are intellectually feeble, they have no idea about...how important India is to the United States – as Richard said – economically, politically, militarily, strategically."



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... z14lTINZMe

A transcript of the segment, which aired on November 8 at 6:14 a.m. EDT, is as follows:


JOE SCARBOROUGH: Richard Haas, I-I've been talking about left-wing bloggers this morning – right-wing bloggers ginned up a funny controversy about the President going to India, and there's been a lot of noise on the far-right about him going to India. That's exactly where he should be. I would send my President to India, like once a month, if I could, for long weekends.

Could you explain why India – a country we don't think about very much – is one of our most critical allies on the world stage, and why it's important the President's there?

RICHARD HAASS, President, Council on Foreign Relations: It's important for so many reasons. Strategically – the 800-pound goarilla in the room that noone's talking about is China. One of the ways you ultimately manage or help steer the rise of China is with a close-strategic relationship with India. It's the baseline.

Secondly, economically. India's this enormous market, 1.2 billion people. Politically, the world's largest democracy. Plus it neighbors on the volatile parts of Asia.

SCARBOROUGH: I was going to say, Afghanistan –

HAASS: Exactly, Pakistan. So for so many reasons, economically, strategically, China – India ought to be at the center of American foreign policy. It was actually one of – I think – the real breakthroughs of this administration, to create a strategic relationship with India. This administration's been slow to do it. But finally they are doing it, and this whole trip actually – this emphasis on Asia, at a time where China's throwing its weight around – is very, very healthy.

SCARBOROUGH: I was just going to say, any right-wing bloggers out there that are critical of the President being in India – anybody – is an idiot. I don't mean to be that blunt, it is the truth – they are – they have their head in the sand, they are intellectually feeble, they have no idea about how important, Mark Halperin, how important India is to the United States – as Richard said – economically, politically, militarily, strategically –

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: International security –

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, the balance against China in that region – it is critical that the President of the United States is there right now.

MARK HALPERIN: And I'd add one more thing to that list, which is this is a country where the people actually want closer ties with the United States, where there's no real tension, you've got a lot of Indian-Americans, you've got a lot of people in India who would like to come here and trade with the United States, Indian companies – people talk about outsourcing, a lot of Indians want to invest in the United States – it is all upside for us, and it's important for the President – that's why he's spending three days there, which is a lot of time.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, he really needs to do that. And also, historically, and we'll talk to Richard some more about this, because the President's speaking before the Indian parliament --

BRZEZINSKI: 7:00 Eastern –

SCARBOROUGH: 7:00 Eastern Time. But also, we have good relations with India. September 11 came, and our shift dramatically went over to Pakistan – and adversary for a very long time. This is important, as Richard said, George W. Bush quietly built the relations up there, but we – we need to – we need to keep pushing



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro ... z14lTWMNFL

[shukla]

Obama backs India UNSC seat to counter China: US media
TOI

The influential New York Times said that by endorsing India for a permanent seat Obama had "signalled the United States' intention to create a deeper partnership of the world's two largest democracies that would expand commercial ties and check the influence of an increasingly assertive China".

The Washington Post agreed, saying it was "a powerful endorsement of India's growing economic power and global aspirations, but one likely to anger China and Pakistan".

The Christian Science Monitor said Obama "wowed the Indian Parliament with a strong US endorsement of India's bid to become a permanent member" of the UNSC. But "Obama's flattering justification for India to join one of the world's most exclusive and powerful clubs does not mean the booming South Asian democracy should expect to see its name engraved on a Security Council seat in New York any time soon", it said. "Getting from consensus to actual reform is not going to be easy, for both practical and political reasons," it said, citing Michael Doyle, a former UN official now specialising in international relations at Columbia University in New York.

The Los Angeles Times described Obama's endorsement as "a dramatic show of respect to the powerful nation he hopes will play a key role in support of US interests around the world." "The pledge is only a step in direction of new international stature for India," it said, noting "the nation likely won't attain permanent council status anytime soon, and the US is backing its addition only as part of a series of council reforms that could be years in the making".

The Wall Street Journal said: "The gesture toward India was long-sought by New Delhi and greeted warmly by the Indian Parliament during the president's speech." It cited Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as saying the move was meant to formalise India's rise as a world and regional power.

[darshhan]

However,I do differ somewhat about the ability of the Islamic street to influence matters in the ME region.It has actually grown immeasurably.See how Hamas and the Hiz have taken over from the moderates threatening Israel.Whether Sunni or Shiite,the street is on the march,especially in Iraq,where the influence of Iran is escalating.

Philip,

Hamas (i.e. the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood) and Hezb'allah are Islamist groups that have embraced the rhetoric of jihad, but they are *not* transnational and global.

They aren't running off to fight America in Afghanistan & Iraq, or India in Kashmir, or Russia in Chechnya, the Philippines in Mindanao, Ethiopians in Somalia, etc. They do not see fighting for the entire ummah as their responsibility even if they are sympathetic.

Hamas will fight ONLY for Palestine, and Hezb'allah will fight for Lebanon, and *perhaps* its neighboring allies in Palestine and Syria, although after the devastation of 2006 Nasrallah has backed off from adventures on behalf of others.

Both movements were well consolidated at the grassroots in the 1980s and 1990s, long before 9/11. Unlike the global jihad, these kinds of movements offer a lot more than a choice between being killed as a traitor or dying a martyr- they build and run quality schools and hospitals for all, as well as a social safety net for the poor. This is what *really* builds loyalty and gives them opportunities for lifelong indoctrination.

The greatest factor in the rise of Hamas has been the loss of credibility of the PLO with many Palestinians who see them as both internally corrupt and externally weak in defending Palestinian national interests.

Hamas, Hezb'allah, the Pakistani Army, etc are all Islamic nationalists, and these are much more formidable foes in the long run than the global jihad. That's because they are better at mobilising and sustaining support (Islamism+nationalism), which is what makes them a threat with staying power.

Johann , while you are right that Hezbollah and Hamas are not a transnational organization like Al qaeda , Hezbollah definitely has the capability to strike globally and has demonstrated this capability in the past from Saudi Arabia to Iraq and to even Argentina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah# ... activities

Hezbollah has established bases all around the world some even in western Hemisphere(venezuela and the Tri border area).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Fro ... ontroversy

Yes Hezbollah has not operated in Afghanistan and Chechenya but that is because these wars relate to Sunni Islam and Hezbollah being a shiite organisation has no stake in it.Hezbollah did operate in Iraq forming Iraq's own Hezbollah brigades and yes guidance and supervision was provided by lebanese Hezollah personnel.It was one of the important shiite factions in Iraq who were fighting against the coalition troops.

Another point to be noted is that Hezbollah works under the Iranian command.So until unless Iran gives them the permission it is unlikely that Hezbollah will take any action.One has to remember that Iran uses Hezbollah to export its own brand of shiite revolution.

But nontheless they do have the capability to hit globally across the continents.Infact as far as capacity and sophistication is concerned I do not think Al Qaeda is even a match for Hezbollah.

Before Osama Bin Laden it was Imad mugnieh who was the most wanted global terrorist.Although now he has been dispatched(most probably by the Israelis).Even CIA paramiltary operatives were looking for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mughnieh

[bahdada]

is this loonie tune Washington Post owned by that South Korean Evangelist Rev. Moon" The article suggesting to reduce india's influence in Afghanistran to please Pakistan to solve US's Afghan Problem.

Nope, you're thinking of the Washington Times.

[Philip]

Technically Johann is right,but as pointed out above by Darshan,Iranian strings pull them as in the case of the Hiz.Similarly,Pak/ISI pulls the strings of the LET,etc.Local terror entities such as these,while they might operate mostly in their region of interest,can and do "outsourcing " work on occassion,as the LTTE did.Islamic terror groups unting to fight the common enemy (US/west) ,as we saw in Iraq earlier ,is the looming danger and fear.A converegence of interests and networking is inevitable as the going gets more and more difficult for terror entities,as they have to operate at far deeper levels to avoid surveillance,interception of communications and penetration.

[shukla]

How Musharraf fooled buffoon Bush

US planned to send spl forces into Pak post 9/11 & 2008: Bush
ET

US came on the verge of marching its special forces into Pakistan to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda safe havens twice, post 9/11 and then again in mid-2008, but the country's rulers each time thwarted the attempt, former President George Bush has revealed. The former military dictator Pervez Musharraf had frustrated him from the move by conjuring up a spectre of a revolt in Pakistan and the possibility of militants taking over the reins of power and the country's nuclear arsenal, Bush said.

Breaking his silence on the tumultuous days after the dreadful 9/11 terror attacks on the US, Bush said that Musharraf and Pakistani Generals had always sought to misled him by saying that it was Indians who were influencing Americans against Pakistan. Pushing himself back into the public eye after a two year hibernation, the former President has come out with these startling new disclosures in his new book which he has titled "Decision Points", where he says that post 9/11 some in the Pakistan Intelligence Services maintained relationship with the Taliban and in fact provided them safe havens.

Bush recalls that as the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run from Afghan capital Kabul, he wanted to send special forces inside Pakistan to take head on these terrorists safe havens, but Musharraf warned him of revolt in the Pak Army in which the extremists could take control of the country including its nuclear arsenal. "He (Musharraf) told me that sending troops into combat in Pakistan would be viewed as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. A revolt would likely ensue. His government would probably fall. The extremists could take over the country including its nuclear arsenal," Bush said adding that in that case he told him that Pak soldiers needed to take the lead and for several years the arrangements worked. In return, the US lifted sanctions and the Congress provided $3 billion in economic aid to Pakistan.

[Lalmohan]

damn that musharraf is good!
take that yindoos! you'll never be as chankian!

[Venkarl]

damn that musharraf is good!
take that yindoos! you'll never be as chankian!

Why only Yindoos?...Yamrikis too...even an audacious Bush succumbed to Mushy

[ramana]

Very interesting insight into the TPA mindset. In other words if they face a superior force they will themsleves laucnh a jihadi coup and gain control of the nukes. BTW I did make this point in my talk in Dec 2007 which is at the India Research.org site.
Its another thing that those in control are also jihadis. This Mexican standoff can't last for too long or esles it will lead to instability due to stasis. US needs to make up its mind what does it want?

The easiest is to force PRC to take back the nukes.

[CRamS]

How Musharraf fooled buffoon Bush

US planned to send spl forces into Pak post 9/11 & 2008: Bush
ET

US came on the verge of marching its special forces into Pakistan to smash Taliban and Al Qaeda safe havens twice, post 9/11 and then again in mid-2008, but the country's rulers each time thwarted the attempt, former President George Bush has revealed. The former military dictator Pervez Musharraf had frustrated him from the move by conjuring up a spectre of a revolt in Pakistan and the possibility of militants taking over the reins of power and the country's nuclear arsenal, Bush said.

Breaking his silence on the tumultuous days after the dreadful 9/11 terror attacks on the US, Bush said that Musharraf and Pakistani Generals had always sought to misled him by saying that it was Indians who were influencing Americans against Pakistan. Pushing himself back into the public eye after a two year hibernation, the former President has come out with these startling new disclosures in his new book which he has titled "Decision Points", where he says that post 9/11 some in the Pakistan Intelligence Services maintained relationship with the Taliban and in fact provided them safe havens.

Bush recalls that as the Taliban and Al Qaeda were on the run from Afghan capital Kabul, he wanted to send special forces inside Pakistan to take head on these terrorists safe havens, but Musharraf warned him of revolt in the Pak Army in which the extremists could take control of the country including its nuclear arsenal. "He (Musharraf) told me that sending troops into combat in Pakistan would be viewed as a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. A revolt would likely ensue. His government would probably fall. The extremists could take over the country including its nuclear arsenal," Bush said adding that in that case he told him that Pak soldiers needed to take the lead and for several years the arrangements worked. In return, the US lifted sanctions and the Congress provided $3 billion in economic aid to Pakistan.

Tell oh erudite ones, Johannan, SS, et. all, with this kind of leverage US had, and Mush tucking his tail and surrendering, what stopped Bush from demanding that TSP completely clean house, including LET? You think had Bush demanded that LET be shut down, Mush & Co would have revolted? What stopped Bush from forging an alliance with Indian military to clean up this pig sty? I mean think of a scenario where US B-52 bombers, drones you nam it, provide air cover, with support from IAF, and Indian navy, while Indian ground forces march into Lahore and Pindi, and obliterate TSP terrorists and its nuke infrastructire? What bigger cause to world peace and eliminating terror can there be than such an arrangement?

[Lalmohan]

^^^ that is the "bomb em back to the stone age" threat that has been discussed before by the mushrat
i think on hearing that he gubo'ed like no pak jarnail has ever gubo'ed before and came up with the cunning plan of taqiya++ leading to hudabiya on global tv...

[ramana]

CRS the bombs are already unsecure. Can you stop for a moment and think?

What did you think the old story of airlift on Sep 12th from Kabul to Rawlapindi Chaklala airbase was all about? It was to bring back the nukes from strategic depth. And now US isn't sure that the stuff is really secure or already distributed to jihadi units.

[Ameet]

Judge blocks Oklahoma's ban on Islamic law

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/ ... aw/?hpt=T2

The entire U.S. Muslim population is about 2.4 million -- less than 1 percent of the country, according to a 2009 survey by the nonprofit Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

[Lalmohan]

perhaps the reason that unkil and the dragon hasn't come down hard on paquis is that the jarnails have 'lost' a few warheads somewhere in the wild and wooly goat lands - creating enough doubt and leverage

these lost bombs are not meant for india - those may already be secure or neutralised. perhaps a treat of indian action leads to an indirect threat of jdam attack on the US? maybe this is what stays their hand from the wrath of unkil?

[CRamS]

Judge blocks Oklahoma's ban on Islamic law

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/08/ ... aw/?hpt=T2

The entire U.S. Muslim population is about 2.4 million -- less than 1 percent of the country, according to a 2009 survey by the nonprofit Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Wonder of Arundathi Roy would write a scathing viewpoint on US Isalmophobia and NYT would publish that .

[putnanja]

Delhi not to toe Washington line on Iran, Myanmar

As initial euphoria over US support to India’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council dies down, New Delhi is realising that President Barack Obama has left a gift-box, but it would be difficult to unwrap it anytime soon.


Though India is happy over US’ “unequivocal and explicit” endorsement of its UNSC aspirations, it is unlikely to review its policies on Iran and Myanmar – the price-tag Obama attached with Washington’s support to New Delhi’s bid for a place on the international high-table.

Sources on Tuesday said that New Delhi might not make any change in its stand on the nuclear programme of Iran and restoration of democracy in Myanmar to toe the US line on these issues.


...

Defence sector may gain little from Entity List removal

Taking four defence laboratories and the missile-production house off the Entity List means 'very little in actual terms' even a hype was created for 'political reasons,' say sources familiar with US export control norms.


During US President Barak Obama’s visit, the US administration announced taking the Bharat Dynamics Limited — India’s missile production unit — and four laboratories run by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) off the Entity List maintained by the US department of commerce.

“Inclusion on this list generally triggers an export licence requirement for items that otherwise do not require an export license,” says a statement released by the White House on Monday. The US administration highlighted it as one of the high-points of the Obama visit.

However, Indian analysts beg to differ. “Very little–actually nothing–will change if these laboratories are removed from the Entity List. One has to wait for the US official notification. But not much is going to change,” a top source who has a thorough knowledge of the US export control regime told Deccan Herald.


...
...
“A major change can only happen until the rules and regulations are changed in toto like what happened with the United Kingdom, Germany and France,” he said. That may come from the realignment of the export licensing policy and cooperation in export control, which Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had announced.

Asked to comment, former DRDO chief V K Aatre welcomed the decision but declined to give specific examples on the areas where DRDO would gain. A DRDO official said the defence research agency could only air its views when it received an official statement from the US administration.
...

[joshvajohn]

U.S.-India Education: Which Way to Go?
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... way-to-go/

India visit of US President Barack Obama has helped change the US perspective of Indian IT industry: NASSCOM
http://www.indlawnews.com/newsdisplay.a ... a9c41c06bc

India eyes comprehensive trade pact with US
http://arabnews.com/economy/article185855.ece

[svinayak]

Opinion
Time to be a better neighbor, India. If you don't, China will.
President Obama's trip to India underscored India's importance in global security and global finances – a democratic counter to an aggressive China. But India's poor foreign policy and botched regional relations have been holding it back.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opi ... China-will

By Maha Rafi Atal / November 9, 2010

New York
On Sunday, President Obama met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi. They discussed opportunities for expanded Indo-American trade, and both leaders highlighted the strategic importance of a strong and prosperous India in the face of Chinese expansion. But Prime Minister Singh did not acknowledge, and President Obama did not bring up, the most important obstacle to India’s success: its poor regional relationships.

From the outset, India’s promise as a rival to China has been that it is a power apart. It could not beat Beijing in a race for pure growth or military might. But in a contest over principles, India’s democratic progress offers the region a model that China cannot match. India should be a partner for countries seeking a fair alternative to alliance with its authoritarian neighbor.

But India is losing this contest, and it is losing it close to home. Now, as President Obama leaves India, it is worth asking: Why isn’t South Asia’s richest country leading more effectively in South Asia?

China is flexing its muscle

China is certainly flexing its muscle. Last month, it sought to restrict exports of rare earth minerals to Japan, made overtures to a secession movement in southern Sudan, and wrestled with the G20 over its currency and trade imbalance.

Nowhere has China been more assertive than in South Asia. In a strategy it calls the “string of pearls,” China is building ports and infrastructure in Bangladesh and Pakistan; digging up minerals in Pakistan and Afghanistan; and refining hydropower in Nepal and Afghanistan.

According to the International Monetary Fund, China’s trade with India’s neighbors totaled $16 billion in 2008, growing at 14 percent annually. India’s regional trade was barely holding steady at $11 billion.

India's overconfidence

Yet China’s success in the Subcontinent reflects India’s own foreign policy blunders.

First, India has been overconfident, assuming that regional neighbors would naturally choose it over Beijing without providing them with positive incentives to do so. That is the case in Bangladesh, a desperately poor country created with the assistance of Indian forces, whose multiple requests for economic aid and greater bilateral trade India has rebuffed. While Bangladeshis wonder why India does not do more, India wonders why Bangladesh is not more appreciative.

Beijing capitalizes on the gap between them.

Interfering and overbearing

Second, India has been overbearing, giving selective support to political movements inside neighboring states.

In Nepal, India backed a feudal aristocracy for four decades, reinstating the monarchy by force after repeated popular revolts. It trained the Nepalese military, and orchestrated political marriages between Nepalese aristocrats and wealthy Indian families. Pushing India out became the top priority of the Maoist guerilla movement that has majority support and an informal alliance with China.

As the UN peace mission holding Nepal together prepares to close in January, India is pitted against China to control the postwar settlement, with Nepal’s critical water resources (about 83,000 megawatts of hydropower) at stake. The confrontation is reminiscent of the situation in Burma (Myanmar), where China and India spent $10 billion last year to secure the support of a military junta guilty of abusing its own subjects.

As the weaker power, India has more to fear from these confrontations.

Shutting out the region

Third, India has been suspicious, choosing to shut out the region when relations go sour rather than addressing underlying tensions.

Earlier this year, the government announced an immigration regime that will restrict multiple entry visas. Multinationals have protested the move as a blow to business travelers from the West and the Persian Gulf, but its greatest victims are migrant laborers from Bangladesh and Nepal. Many will turn to China for employment instead; others will enter illegally, bringing crime with them.

Nowhere has suspicion been more crippling to Indian policy than in the case of Pakistan. So long as Kashmiri militants – with historic ties to Pakistan – continue to operate inside India, India maintains it cannot meet with Pakistan over the disputed border, or over critical resources like water and gas. But it is the ongoing dispute that creates the very basis for this militancy. In a country with porous mountain borders, such threats are virtually impossible to block out by force.

Yet New Delhi means to try.

Unfortunately, the United States has been an accomplice to India’s regional isolationism. In 2008, pressure from Washington shut down a natural gas project involving India, Pakistan, and Iran. Last year, Present Obama briefly considered appointing Amb. Richard Holbrooke as a regional envoy, with the authority to conduct dialogue between India and Pakistan, but narrowed his brief to Afghanistan and Pakistan over Indian opposition.

Asked about Pakistan at a town hall meeting in New Delhi on Sunday, the president reiterated that the United States would not intervene in the Kashmir dispute. Yet without an Indo-Pak peace, no strategy for Afghanistan can move forward.

The trappings of global status, without the substance

The West has lavished India with the trappings of global status: a seat at the G20, a temporary seat at the UN Security Council that may open the door to a permanent one, a controversial US-India nuclear deal, and two pending defense trades worth more than $15 billion dollars.

To read Indian newspapers or speak to diplomats is to believe that these gestures represent global influence. But in fact, they signal the rise of a Potemkin hegemon. If India is encircled by China’s string of pearls, and if migrants and militants compromise its borders, then it will be forced to waste its economic resources putting out local fires, unable to project power further afield.

Moreover, as they watch this regional saga, potential partners in Africa, the Middle East, or Central Asia see India as a country that treats its neighbors with contempt. Indian leaders can argue that other great powers have done the same, but the argument misunderstands the very nature and purpose of India’s rise, the unique role that ideals must play in India’s success.
author is making bogus arguments

To be sure there are steps India can take to reverse this course. If it accepts international mediation in Kashmir, if it becomes a neutral partner for peace in Burma and Nepal, and if it opens its markets to greater regional trade, it may yet salvage its position as the democratic counter-power to China. But these are long-term solutions, and the window to pursue them is shrinking.

Maha Rafi Atal is a journalist in New York, recently returned from India, Pakistan, and Nepal where she was a correspondent for the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

[ramana]

K.P.Nayar in Telegraph fulminates on the Indo-US strategic ties or lack there of!

Just 208 words about India

India’s Points: 208 words
- Bush barely mentions nuclear deal in book

K.P. NAYAR

Bush signs a copy of his book. (AP)
Washington, Nov. 11:

First the euphoria, then the letdown.

In a 509-page book about his presidency published by George W. Bush this week, only half a page is devoted to India.

Decision Points, the book which shared the top news spot on American television during the weekend along with President Barack Obama’s visit to India, arrived on bookshelves here on Tuesday.

It will come as a shock to those Indians who believe that their country was a top priority for the Bush presidency that of its 195,456 words, the book has a mere 208 words about India.

It is a revelation which should put Prakash Karat’s mind at rest.

That in itself may not be the unkindest cut for Indians who supported Bush and have maintained that he transformed Indo-US relations because New Delhi became an anchor of the former President’s strategic vision for a post-9/11 world.

Even those 208 words figure in just three paragraphs only in the context of justifying a visit by Bush to Islamabad after his trip to India in March 2006.

Considering that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spent his entire political capital on seeing through a nuclear deal with the US and risked his very government causing a political earthquake in India, it is somewhat jarring to see that Bush dismisses civil nuclear co-operation with New Delhi in one and a half sentences.

Sentiment and any emotional distress apart, the true value of Decision Points for Indians now may be to understand why Obama skirted Pakistan in Mumbai until he was forced address that problem by Afsheen Irani, a 19-year-old student at St. Xavier’s College.

National interests of nations do not change merely because presidents or prime ministers have changed, and in any case, the core professionals who advise heads of state and government are the same, except a few political appointees at the state department or in the National Security Council in the case of Washington.

It is clear from the numerous pages in Decision Points devoted to Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaida that the US has been and will be tied to Pakistan by an umbilical cord which no President, howsoever in love with India, can cut in the foreseeable future.

The Bush memoir ought to help India to learn to live with the fact that Pakistan’s critical importance to America will persuade Obama — as Bush did — or his successor to arm, aid and mollycoddle whoever rules in Islamabad, be it a civilian or a man in uniform.

Decision Points details the reasons why Bush did so.

But reading the former President’s book side by side with Obama’s speeches in Mumbai and New Delhi also throws light on why there has been an unmistakable dehyphenation of India and Pakistan in the White House.

India is seen both by Bush and Obama as a growing market for US goods and a potential partner in strengthening America’s economy whose weaknesses can be overcome, albeit in part, by association with India.

That demands that Washington does not see its relations with India and Pakistan as a zero sum game. It can be inferred from the book that this is what has happened during the Bush presidency, a policy that is continuing under Obama.

What is startling though is that all this understanding comes from the accounts by Bush about what he did or did not do with Pakistan since there are no such reference points on India.

The book will be a sobering read for India’s strategic community, the bulk of which actually advocated surrendering New Delhi’s strategic autonomy in practice, a ganging up of the so-called Asian democracies in an alliance against China and endorsement of anything Bush proposed as President, including missile defence and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).


The PSI would have required India to interdict ships suspected of carrying unauthorised nuclear material, which could have put the country at odds with China or Iran.

By not making even a passing mention of such initiatives in an Indian context, it is clear that the Bush administration was selling India a strategic pipe-dream, which was being celebrated in public discourse in New Delhi as the dawn of a new era and as a path to India’s great power status.

Naturally, many of these proposals died with the Bush presidency.

In a global survey which was conducted when he was at the White House, India was one of only three countries where Bush was popular as president.

That love seems to have been unrequited because the former President is almost condescending in a reference to India. “I believe India, home to roughly a billion people and an educated middle class has the potential to be one of America’s closest partners.”

In the only reference to the nuclear deal, Bush writes: “The nuclear agreement was a historic step because it signalled the country’s new role on the world stage.”

Sadly, here again, the nuclear deal is mentioned as a prelude to its impact in Pakistan and why Bush visited Islamabad. “The nuclear deal naturally raised concerns in Pakistan,” he writes.

Essentially he is saying ullu banaaya. Well would have been greater ullu if the laibility bill was passed as earlier proposed.

Still the best option is to grow India in all spheres and be what you can be to realise the destiny.

[CRamS]

For those like me, who even today believe that India US relations at a strategic level are hollow, Bush's book, where he hardly has any time or conscience for India, doesn't surprise me one bit. At least Obama is a smart guy who has some knowledge of India, Gandhi etc, but cannot deviate from the systemtic India containment policy embedded in the halls of power in DC. Bush on the other hand is an ignoramus red neck with no clue and could care two hoots about India. His book must be a rude shock for those who talk nostalgically of India US relations under him.

[Pulikeshi]

And I thought actions speak louder than words!

[ShivaS]

during early 1991/ and after 9-11
In a debate withN guru, I had said Msuhy is a story of Cat o nine tails.

Akhir yeah mushy badmash ka bachha ganag pani piye so hai

He will thrive unless RAW does some home work..

[Pratyush]

Shivas,

I would prefer if RAW left him alone for the brothers in TSP. If he returns to TSP very soon he will be made to have an intimate moment with a sun roof lever.

It is better for him to suffer that at the hands of his own brothers.

JMT

[ramana]

You mean Baraders!

[Pratyush]

Sorry I meant brithars

[ramana]

I was referring to Mullah Barader who was sold out to the TSPA!

[csharma]

Ashley Tellis who has provided the intellectual foundation for the US drive for closer US India relation said this.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm

Is the US trying to balance out China by having strong relations with India?

The US does not need India. We can balance China on our own. We did the same to the Soviet Union.

This clearly shows that US wants India to buy weapons and take advantage of the market. The China angle is probably used to facilitate the partnership.

[Sanku]

Ashley Tellis who has provided the intellectual foundation for the US drive for closer US India relation said this.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/19inter1.htm

Is the US trying to balance out China by having strong relations with India?

The US does not need India. We can balance China on our own. We did the same to the Soviet Union.

This clearly shows that US wants India to buy weapons and take advantage of the market. The China angle is probably used to facilitate the partnership.

I am increasing concerned about the possibility that US and China are actually partnering very closely, the stated differences and what not are hogwash. US has figured out that it needs to sell more weapons to suckers around the world for profit to pay for Chinese imports. The Chinese have similarly figured out that they are cipher without US.

Together, they are taking the rest for a ride, a willing divide of the world between the two instead of fighting.

Unlike Soviet Union type of G2, there is no conflict between China and US whatsoever, if we look at actions and not words.

This is a new improved G2.

[csharma]

As I had posted in the Obama visit thread, whether US has addressed India's concerns regarding China Pak threat would not be known since it was discussed behind close doors. That is exactly what Satish Chandra is saying.

On the face ot it, it looks like a very successful visit. It was clear that the visit was going to be a disaster after the St Xavier thing. Looks like the US side changed course to sway Indian public opinion. Whether India's real security concerns were addressed is not yet known.

The public opinion euphoria will enable the pro US people in GoI to push India into greater economic partnership with the US. Maybe it will benefit both if India plays its card right.

As KS pointed out, one has to watch for the review of Af PAK policy slated for December if what was said in the Parliament is policy or just talk aimed at India.

Has Obama's visit addressed India's core concerns?

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/obama ... 101111.htm

That the three-day Obama visit to India was an indisputable success is not in doubt whether seen from the public diplomacy angle, the transactional arrangements arrived at, the purely political side, or the reinforcement of rapport between the president and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ].
The extent to which it has, however, been leveraged to address India's core security concerns in regard to the threat from Pakistan and China remains a question mark.

[Pratyush]

I was referring to Mullah Barader who was sold out to the TSPA!

No I did not consider that for Mush. Cause I feel that Barader even though was sold off by the ISI/TSPA. Will not bother with Mush. even if they are angry with MUSh for 2001. As it was the actions of Mush that allowed the Taliban to flurish in the badlands.

So my read is that they will leave him alone. Even if they are angry with him. The pakiban is a seperate matter all together. They will try to get rid of him as soon as they can.

Added later

What I find interesting is the bandwidth he has recieved from the US/UK, over the past few weeks. I had felt that the current arrangement in TSP was to the liking of the khans and poodle. Also most of his commens make him sound like a senile old man trying to relive his old glory as the GUBO in chief of TSP.

Regardless of the poor performance of the current civilain administration in TSP. Becaues at the moment he will be just another mask for the Khakies. A failed one at that.

No way will he be alowed to return by the powers that be in TSP. Regardless of the real or percieved failures of the current bunch in Islamabad.

JMT

[svinayak]

I am increasing concerned about the possibility that US and China are actually partnering very closely, the stated differences and what not are hogwash. US has figured out that it needs to sell more weapons to suckers around the world for profit to pay for Chinese imports. The Chinese have similarly figured out that they are cipher without US.

Together, they are taking the rest for a ride, a willing divide of the world between the two instead of fighting.

Unlike Soviet Union type of G2, there is no conflict between China and US whatsoever, if we look at actions and not words.

This is a new improved G2.

I got some confirmation of this today.
US has actually want to create long term trading partnership with China and keep the rest of the asia under the hegemony of China/PRC authoritarian rule and bully. PRC is playing the role as directed by US and in perfect coordination. This keeps order and balance in the region without much effort. China is a cooperating partner in the global arena to create disorder at the place and time decided by G2. Cooperation with Pakistan is also a combined G2 position

All the other nations will either come together or take help from US to build hedge against PRC. There are still some holes in this but that is the direction it is going.