Sometimes I feel same......If only Indian communists are nationalistic....Pratyush wrote:Shudders: never thoght I will say this but the communists for whaterver reasons are the ones who may just end up saving the day. Shudders
Certainly true about Unkil, which is rapidly converting to a police state.Venkarl wrote:...Deep inside Democracy there is dictatorship .
You asked for it and External Affairs Minister Krishna has said "This is unacceptable to India". They are going to take this issue with USA. It is all fine and dandy, if India really had spine it would take Pakistan and USA aid to Pakistan with USA.Pratyush wrote:Unacceptable that an Indian Diplomatic passport holder is subjected to this kind of action. The lady is an accrideted ambassador to the US.
If the GOI had any spine it would have reclalled the ambassador for discussions immediately. But asking and expecting this from the present lot is foolish.
Welcome to that small gang. In the last elections when the commies were decimated in India, I was one of the slightly sad ones. The Indian commies can act as an effective check in India's alignment with America. BJP and INC are two sides of the same coin. It is sad that commies have "furrign handlers".Pratyush wrote:Shudders: never thoght I will say this but the communists for whaterver reasons are the ones who may just end up saving the day. Shudders
U.S. Commerce Secretary Threatens India as Favor to Special InterestThe US commerce secretary lobbying his counterpart in another country on behalf of a company is rare, but not unknown, and in early November, just days ahead of US President Barack Obama’s visit to India, Gary Locke did just that, writing to India’s Anand Sharma seeking “fair consideration” of Gilead Sciences Inc.’s patent appeal in India.
In 2009, India’s patent office rejected Gilead’s patent application for HIV/AIDS drug Tenofovir, which is sold under the brand name Viread in some markets, citing “lack of inventiveness”, a key criteria for patent protection under the Indian Patent Act.
How would you feel if a Chinese diplomat attempted to exert influence over an American court case involving a Chinese company's bogus attempt to shut down American companies from offering products to the American people? You probably wouldn't like it, and neither would I. Well, that's exactly what our Commerce Secretary, Gary Locke, has done to India, writing a letter on behalf of one American company (Gilead Sciences) that is losing its bid in India courts to use a junk patent application to shut down Indian companies from offering a very important AIDS drug to the Indian people. For shame, Mr. Locke. For shame.
Specifically, Secretary Locke wrote to India's Commerce Minister, "I am particularly concerned that the US biopharmaceutical firm Gilead's HIV/AIDS drug Viread receives fair consideration" regarding its patent application. The letter continues, "Gilead is currently appealing its case before the IPAB. I seek your commitment to ensure that the company's appeal is treated in fair, transparent and timely manner."
What do you mean by "fair consideration," Secretary Locke? Are you alleging that India's legal system doesn't provide a fair, transparent and timely process to all participants? That's a pretty serious accusation, and seems baseless given the lack of any evidence that supports your allegation Gilead isn't receiving "fair consideration." Is it every day that you make baseless threats of foreign countries, Secretary Locke, or only some of the time?
And, do you know, Secretary Locke, that it is actually our patent system, right here in the good ol' U.S.A. that is unfair to international parties? Yes, we have severe xenophobia right here in our own patent system, where foreign litigants do not get a fair trial as compared to their domestic competitors.
The beauty of US, if you want to call it that is its malleability and pragmatic approach. No absolutes. US has all the elements of a liberal democracy (on domestic issues where there is an even split between dems and reps), elements of a fascist police state (especially when it comes to national security), elements of a corrupt oligarchy or plutocracy, elemnts of a hard-core Christian theocracy (witness how much Obama has to prove he is a Christian) etc. I mean the best of all worlds, and uses all these attributes to calibrate its supremacy. And above all, a resourceful, committed people who believe in themselves and their superiority and exceptionalism.sumishi wrote:Certainly true about Unkil, which is rapidly converting to a police state.
The weakness is in analysis, profiling, decision-making, and understanding the nature of the enemy ideology. As a result, there have been a number of smaller attacks, including some not counted at all by a government that wants to keep its batting average high, and some near-misses that were averted due more to luck than to skill.
In addition, a huge amount of money has been wasted and effort misdirected, as many are coming to see regarding the current methods of airport security.
Consider Abdulrahman Alamoudi, the Muslim leader who most frequently visited the Clinton White House. Poole rightly describes Alamoudi as:
The most prominent Islamic activist leader in America at the time, he had infiltrated the highest levels of political power. … [He was asked] by the Defense Department to establish the military’s Muslim chaplain corps, and appointed by the State Department to serve as a civilian ambassador, taking six taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. … Just days after the 9/11 attacks, he appeared with President Bush and other Muslim leaders at a press conference at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. despite his public comments a year earlier at a rally just steps from the White House identifying himself as a supporter of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.
In July 2005 the Treasury Department revealed that Alamoudi had been one of al-Qaeda’s top fundraisers ….
Then there was Ali Mohamed, a man who trained American soldiers on Arab culture and infiltrated the U.S. Army’s training program for intelligence officers in the Middle East. Simultaneously, he was teaching Islamist militants in the United States — including the cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — how to shoot and blow things up. Later, he became al-Qaeda’s chief military expert.
Should be a poll thread for this.ramana wrote:Do our forum members feel that strongly!
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said Indian Ambassador to the United States Meera Shankar being subject to a “pat down” was not good diplomacy.
She said the External Affairs Ministry was awaiting a report from its Washington mission before taking up the matter with the U.S. government.
“We have also asked our Embassy in Washington to give us a detailed report on the incident. We haven't as yet received that, but we will be certainly be looking at that before we take further action,” Ms. Rao told journalists here on Friday on the sidelines of a function on public diplomacy.
“It wasn't good public diplomacy and we will certainly be speaking with the American Embassy here,” she added. The Foreign Secretary added that the Ministry was also in touch with Washington over previous instances of pat down and intrusive search of envoys and Central ministers.
“We have an ongoing discussion with them on this, and we will take it up.”
Government sources here said Ms. Shankar was subjected to a pat down about two months ago at the Chicago airport. Around the same time, Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel was closely questioned at the same airport because his name matched with that of another person on the U.S. watch-list.
Adopt same procedure: CPI(M)
Reacting to the latest incident, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) said it was not enough for the government to say this treatment was unacceptable.
Since the U.S. authorities had said that Ambassadors were not exempt from security searches, India should adopt a reciprocal approach. U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer too should be subjected to security searches on domestic flights in India, suggested the party.
What will be the outcome of Cancun? The details are still being thrashed out but one thing is certain — when the two-week conference ends, India will have further diluted its stance on climate change negotiations.
The government might justify it as a part of its larger geopolitical need or a pragmatic review of its position or the need to not stand alone, but India is bound to come out by taking another step towards diluting the existing principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Bali Action Plan that it fought hard for two decades.
As a developing country negotiator said, "In Bali, India accepted it would carry out mitigation actions. In Copenhagen, it accepted international scrutiny and in Cancun, we have accepted the possibility of legally binding targets. One has to see if by Durban next year, India also accepts absolute emission cuts."
The questions that one would need to ask when the post-summit assessment begins are two-fold. How will these changes in the international climate change stance impact India's economic growth and what did India gain in return for these regressions?
Someone who is a student of international relations might see the climate change game changing in the light of US support for India's candidature to the UN Security Council but the critics of the flexibility that has PM Manmohan Singh's blessings would want to know if the mantra may cost the Indian economy and its poor too much by the time the new global climate deal is concluded.
Till 2009, the government had claimed that emission-reduction targets could wipe out considerable economic growth. At the penultimate day of the Cancun talks, India seemed poised to slip into such targets sooner than one had thought a couple of years ago.
It began by avoiding any kind of mitigation actions, pointing out that it was not the culprit in the first place. This was in the early 90s. It played a difficult balance of closing the bilateral gap with the US while it stuck to a stringent multilateral line at the climate forum.
By the time UPA was in place, the mandate had shifted. The policy shift towards US and the competitive neighbourhood made India dance a tricky step towards the high table, slowly forsaking its role as the leader of the G77 and quickly taking its seat at forums like the G20 and the Major Economies Forum. The climate shift was a package deal, policy wonks suggested, and that giving up on concerns about international scrutiny and bearing costs of a quicker transition to green energy is well worth the gambit.
The UPA is yet to show the cost sheets of this change in its policy climate.
One of the most frequent questions I’ve gotten from readers has been, “Why shouldn’t she have to go through the pat-downs like everyone else? What makes this a story?”
If there are that many people out there who don’t “get” the story, then I’m going to try to break down the newsworthiness:
- Unlike everyone else, the ambassador already has passed rigorous security checks just to hold her position — she can hang with President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and other dignitaries because she’s been cleared to do so. I think that’s what makes her case a bit different, than say, you and me.
- To those saying “She’s no more important than anyone else” — she really is! And that’s why people write about her. Several local media outlets covered just the fact that she was visiting Mississippi. If one of us “regular folk” travel to India, I don’t think we’d see stories about it in the Indian press.
- Many people (See Congressman Bennie Thompson’s comments from Tuesday’s story), aren’t even necessarily saying that Shankar’s “better than anyone else.” They have questioned whether the pat-down is appropriate for ordinary passengers too, and I think that’s another element of the story. Important people are raising the question: Even if everything is “by-the-book” does that make it right? Some (including Clinton, Barbour, Thompson, etc) seem to think that the policies should be reviewed. That’s newsworthy.
Citing $10 billion worth of 'landmark' deals with India and other trade initiatives, US President Barack Obama has proposed easing export controls on technology products for 37 allies, but India does not figure in the first list.
During his India trip last month, Obama had promised to ease export rules for India consistent with its emergence as a strategic partner. The US requires exporters to obtain a license to sell civilian technology that also can be used for military purposes. The restrictions vary based on US relations with a country. Four export rules were published Thursday for comment, including new regulations on the export of military vehicles, criteria for creating a tiered system to classify technology for export and lessening restrictions on exports to certain countries.
The proposed regulation would give companies the ability to export without a prior government license for sales of many items to 37 nations: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. A narrower category of items may be sold to 125 nations without approval by the government, according to the draft rule
The American diplomat was told that India expects that the state department and the TSA would "sensitise all its agents at all its airports to cultural and religious sensitivities of foreign diplomats."
Ashraf pointed out that India respects the privileges of foreign diplomats in India and extends diplomatic courtesies to them. "Such incidents naturally lead to calls for review of privileges and facilities given in India (to foreign diplomats)," he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-1 ... ffice.htmlRichard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, is in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, according to a hospital official who asked not to be identified.
India's permanent envoy to the United Nations Hardeep Puri was asked to remove his turban in Texas.
[whine]vera_k wrote:Another Indian envoy embarrassed in US
India's permanent envoy to the United Nations Hardeep Puri was asked to remove his turban in Texas.
Members of Indo-American community fasted and protested Sunday to show their frustration with a newly-enforced rule that is delaying the issuance of visas to allow travelers to visit family in India for the holidays.
He's not leakproof
WikiLeaks seems to be affecting attendance at officially ceremonies. US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer's absence at the Navy Day reception hosted by Admiral Nirmal Verma was noticed on December 4. His absence is being viewed in the context of the leaked cable from the US embassy in Delhi, in which Roemer writes about the Indian Army being a 'lumbering'. So skipping a navy doesn't seem such a mystery then.
The US security personnel was 'not aware' of the new rules, and asserted that he wanted to pat down Puri's turban. 'However, I refused to do so. I told him to check with his superiors and that I would refuse to have my turban patted down. After 30 minutes, the security team came back, apologised profusely and I was allowed to proceed and the issue was over,' he said.
The Indian envoy insisted that media reports of his turban being checked were not true. 'I want to keep the record straight. My turban was not patted down,' Puri said.
Former Indian diplomats have reacted to the latest incident by pointing out that there should be reciprocal treatment of foreign envoys in India.
'The issue is not just of diplomats, but also of our Sikh brethren, whose issue we had taken up several times,' former Indian ambassador to US, Ronen Sen told Times Now television channel. He said the security check of Puri's turban violated the reassurances given by US authorities on sensitivity in handling religious symbols during checks. 'We had explained to them that a pagri (turban) that a Sikh wears is not a headgear. It is a religious symbol, which should be treated with respect,' said Sen.
He said that there should be a 'reciprocal (treatment) across the board'. Similarly, former foreign secretary Romesh Bhandari said that 'reciprocity may be desirable'.
The other more protracted and consequently effective inducements are the raft of scholarships to American universities handed out to the offspring of top Indian politicians, civil servants and defence and intelligence officers, and the patronage extended to Service officers under the long established Military Education and Training (IMET) programme.
So blatant, widespread and generous is Washington's largesse to the students — facilitating and financing, as it does, their pursuit of eclectic disciplines like the liberal arts, English literature and, even, art and history in leading U.S. institutions — that it is worth asking to what extent Indian policy on a range of issues of interest to America remains ‘hostage' to the children of a growing number of Delhi's powerful decision-makers. The scholarship recipients' list is embarrassingly revelatory.
It is also not unknown for senior Indian intelligence, security and military officials travelling to Washington to negotiate sensitive bilateral issues and agreements to ask their obliging hosts, who by now have a measure of their Delhi counterparts, for favours like Green Cards, extension of student visas and even employment prospects for their brood in the U.S.
India has already allowed the U.S. army admittance to its counter insurgency jungle warfare school at Virangte in the northeast but is still considering opening up the High Altitude Warfare School (HAWS) at Gulmarg to American soldiers.
But despite disallowing the U.S. access to HAWS, its Special Forces (SF) conducted high altitude exercises in Ladakh in September 2003 with the Indian SF to augment “inter-operability” between the two armies. These exercises, conducted a year after similar manoeuvres at Agra, marked the first time India permitted foreign troops into the geographically strategic region. Force multipliers invested in a few years earlier seemed to be paying off.