Indian Foreign Policy

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Jun 2009 20:46

Nirupama Rao to be next foreign secretary

India's Ambassador to China Nirupama Rao was on Tuesday named as the next foreign secretary to succeed Shivshankar Menon who will be retiring on July 31 after an eventful three-year stint as the top diplomat.

Rao, a 1973-batch IFS officer who has served in a number of key positions, will be the second woman foreign secretary of India after Chokila Iyer.

Prior to her posting in Beijing as Ambassador in October 2006, the 58-year-old seasoned diplomat had served as Indian envoy to Sri Lanka and the country's first woman spokesperson.

Earlier, she had served in the Indian Missions in Washington and Moscow besides having a stint in the Ministry of External Affairs as Joint Secretary (East Asia).

She will be taking over as the top diplomat at a time when India's relations with Pakistan are going through tough times in the aftermath of Mumbai terror attacks.

She's made of strong stuff, seems like. Lez hope she'll be able to provide the requisite inputs to SM Krishna at the MEA.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Jul 2009 00:18

Feisty lady. Top notch. The Paks will have a handful.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 01 Jul 2009 01:24

vsudhir wrote:Nirupama Rao to be next foreign secretary

She's made of strong stuff, seems like. Lez hope she'll be able to provide the requisite inputs to SM Krishna at the MEA.

Both kannadigas, no?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2009 01:47

No a little South.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Jul 2009 01:48

I remember reading somewhere that Nirupama is a malayalee married to a kannadiga IAS officer Sudhakar Rao, and did some of her schooling in Bangalore among other places.

Adding more details and a picture:

Nirupama to be next Foreign Secretary

...
Born in Kerala on December 6, 1950. Rao studied in Bangalore, Pune, Lucknow and Coonoor.

Nirupama obtained a Master’s degree in English literature from Marathwada University in 1972 and joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1973.

As a diplomat, she has served in Indian missions in various world capitals, including Washington and Moscow. She served in the East Asia division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi between 1984 and 1992, including as Joint Secretary (East Asia).

She was a minister in the Indian Embassy in Washington from 1993 to 1995 and looked after press affairs. She was India’s ambassador of India to Peru from 1995 to 1998.

From 1998-1999, she was Deputy Chief of Mission at the Indian Embassy in Moscow.

Rao was appointed MEA spokesperson in 2001. She was the first woman to be appointed to the post. She was the Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka from 2004-06.
Since late October 2006, Rao has been serving as the Ambassador of India in China.
...

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Jul 2009 01:54

Is she the one who was hararsd by Pukes along with Mushy at Agra?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 01 Jul 2009 01:56

She was Chokila Iyer, the first female foreign secretary of India.

BTW, Nirupama Rao's husband Sudhakar Rao is the current Chief Secretary of Karnataka Govt.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Jul 2009 02:52

While in US she had a message for the naysayers or India baiters. She said "Read about the changes happening in India and share the optimism!" or words to that effect.

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 01 Jul 2009 05:06

Prem wrote:Is she the one who was hararsd by Pukes along with Mushy at Agra?

yes, that is her. the spokesperson who got harassed by uncouth RAPE reporters.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 01 Jul 2009 05:13

In March last year, the chinese foreign office summoned Ms Nirupama at 2 am for routine nothings.
Harassment pure and simple.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 01 Jul 2009 06:47

vsudhir wrote:In March last year, the chinese foreign office summoned Ms Nirupama at 2 am for routine nothings.
Harassment pure and simple.

I remember those incidents. Did we repay the kindness?

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Jul 2009 14:56

Everything is noted. Sometimes repaid. I suspect sometimes not. But nothing is forgotten.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Jul 2009 07:14

IFS tightens grip on Krishna

Foreign ministry mandarins have begun to exercise a tight grip over new minister S M Krishna, whose every meeting is screened to the last detail. The IFS personal staff have even got the better of Krishna’s own longstanding team, driving in them the fear that one wrong utterance could spell doom for the minister. So much so that a group of senior editors from seven important countries of the Middle-East, invited by the MEA, did not get any political audience during their week-long stay. With Shashi Tharoor away, Krishna’s office denied a request for a meeting, saying the area is under the purview of the MoS.
...

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 02 Jul 2009 23:15

I seem to recall reading that on the penultimate day of the NSG approval (In Sept 2008), we also pulled the Chinese out of bed at 2 am- can someone corroborate that?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Jul 2009 23:19

This thread is about India's Foreign Policy.

Can we go beyond Nirupama Rao?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 02 Jul 2009 23:24

http://samachaar.in/Arunachal_Pradesh/I ... der_85488/

This would show that India is griding her loins and things will be different.

How should the Foreign Policy gear itself for this show of strength? And what should be done from the Foreign Policy standpoint to counter any Chinese stand?

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2009 15:06

Developing India’s Foreign Policy "Software" - PDF

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This article outlines significant shortcomings in India’s foreign policy institutions that undermine the country’s capacity for ambitious and effective international action, and proposes steps that both New Delhi and Washington should take, assuming they aim to promote India’s rise as a great power.

Main Argument

India’s own foreign policy establishment hinders the country from achieving great-power status for four main reasons: (1) The Indian Foreign Service is small, hobbled by its selection process and inadequate midcareer training, and tends not to make use of outside expertise; (2) India’s think-tanks lack sufficient access to the information or resources required to conduct high-quality, policy-relevant scholarship; (3) India’s public universities are poorly funded, highly regulated, and fail to provide world-class education in the social sciences and other fields related to foreign policy; and (4) India’s media and private firms—leaders in debating the country’s foreign policy agenda—are not built to undertake sustained foreign policy research or training.

Policy Implications

For India to achieve great-power status, a number of improvements to its foreign policy software will be required:

* expand, reform, pay, and train the Indian Foreign Service to attract and retain high-caliber officers
* encourage the growth of world-class social science research and teaching schools in India through partnerships with private Indian and U.S. investors, universities, and foundations
* Invest in Indian think-tanks and U.S.-India exchange programs that build capacity for foreign policy research
* bring non-career officers into the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and other parts of the foreign policy establishment as term-limited fellows to improve outside understanding of the policy process
* support the efforts of Indian researchers to maximize public access to material related to the history of India’s foreign policy by way of the 2005 Right to Information Act

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 05 Jul 2009 15:55

India joins Russia, China in questioning dollar dominance

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 05 Jul 2009 16:12

arunsrinivasan wrote:Developing India’s Foreign Policy "Software" - PDF

* Invest in Indian think-tanks and U.S.-India exchange programs that build capacity for foreign policy research

No Thank you very much.

Jamal K. Malik · Post by **Jamal K. Malik** » 06 Jul 2009 15:06

500 cr allocated for Sri Lankan Tamil's rehabilitation

Mukherjee said the External Affairs Ministry was working closely with Sri Lankan Government to ensure rehabilitation of the displaced people.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 11 Jul 2009 02:02

http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2009 ... or-upa-20/

PRAGATI: THE INDIAN NATIONAL INTEREST REVIEW

Foreign policy challenges for UPA 2.0

With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh forming a second-successive government at the head of the UPA coalition in May, Pragati asked several leading Indian experts what, in their opinions, were the top foreign policy challenges and priorities for the new government.

Dhruva Jaishankar

What India’s foremost experts say:

WITH PRIME Minister Manmohan Singh forming a second-successive government at the head of the UPA coalition in May, Pragati asked several leading Indian experts what, in their opinions, were the top foreign policy challenges and priorities for the new government.

C Raja Mohan

Many of India’s national security and foreign policy priorities come together in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) region. These include the unmet challenge of terrorism with links across our Western borders, the management of the bitter legacy of Partition with Pakistan, the projection of India’s power beyond its immediate borders in Afghanistan and the consolidation of India’s most important great power relationship with the United States. Therefore getting the policy towards our north-western neighbourhood is likely to be at the top of the new government’s agenda.

The post-Mumbai pessimism about engaging Pakistan and the expectation of a less-than-warm relationship with the Obama administration seemed to have lent a dark edge to the foreign policy calculus of Dr Manmohan Singh in the second term.

I would in fact make the case for a more optimistic and even ‘opportunistic’ approach to the Af-Pak region. Whatever the pessimists might say about Pakistan and Mr Obama, the current crisis in the region between the Indus and the Hindu Kush is too valuable to be wasted. India must make a bold attempt at using American weight and its current extraordinary interest in the Af-Pak region to produce long-term structural change within Pakistan and in the relationship between New Delhi and Islamabad. This will require shedding many of the shibboleths that currently guide India’s policies towards Islamabad, Kabul and Washington.

C Raja Mohan is professor of South Asian Studies at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

VR Raghavan

The election results have ushered the Indian state and its citizens into a period of political stability. The government has the opportunity to boldly go forward on definitive measures in the security and strategic arena. The first need is to put into place a more responsive, effective and integrated internal security arrangement to make the country safe from catastrophic terrorist acts like 9/11 or 26/11. This requires improved centre-state co-ordination and far superior intelligence management than hitherto.

The second priority should be to build a national consensus on India’s international nuclear disarmament commitment. What would India’s position be if the United States and China ratify the CTBT? In my view India ratifying the CTBT, after the U.S. and China, will attain two purposes. It will enhance its role as a responsible nuclear weapons state. It will also encourage Pakistan to do so.

Third, the government should push for building the foundations of economic and social growth. Infrastructure development and widening the reach of school education are the key to national power in the long run.

Lt Gen (Retd) V R Raghavan is director of the Delhi Policy Group and president of the Centre for Security Analysis.

B Raman

Our relations with Pakistan should have the topmost priority because of their impact on our internal security situation. How can we convince Pakistan that it will never be able to change the status quo in Jammu & Kashmir by using terrorism against us?

Our relations with China should have the second priority. Military confrontation with China would be unwise, but we should strengthen our economic relations hoping that the economic linkages and the Chinese interest in sustaining those linkages would moderate its present rigid stand in Arunachal Pradesh. Political power flows out of economic power, and we are at least a decade behind China in our economic power.

Our relations with the United States should have the third priority. The Obama administration’s only interest is in preventing us from retaliating against Pakistan for its acts of terrorism in Indian territory. This policy will act as a speed-breaker for further strengthening India-US relations. Despite this, we should be open to new ideas coming from the United States, provided those ideas are not detrimental to our national interests.

Our relations with Russia should have the fourth priority. Russia might be able to moderate Chinese policies towards India and is still a dependable supplier of arms, ammunition and nuclear power stations.

Our relations with Bangladesh and Nepal are important because they too have an impact on our internal security. Now that the LTTE is gone, we should get rid of our inhibitions in playing a more active role in Sri Lanka as we were doing before 1991.

Internal security management has not received the attention it deserves. Our persisting internal security problems in different parts of the country are acting as a drag on our emergence as a major economic power. We have many weaknesses, including intelligence collection and assessment, rapid intervention capability, and retaliatory self-defence capability. Finally, the preparation of a long-term perspective plan for the modernisation of our armed forces needs attention, as well as the development of military-related technologies and production capabilities.

B. Raman is director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai.

K Subrahmanyam

India’s top priority is to mobilise international public opinion to combat jihadism as an ideology as was done with respect to Nazism. Support from Muslim populations, especially in non-Arab Muslim countries and cooperation with the United States, European Union and Russia is absolutely essential. The final aim is to de-jihadise the world, just as it was de-Nazified.

On regional issues, India must pay a lot of attention to Bangladesh and improve relations, security and economic cooperation to the maximum extent. It must play the pre-eminent role in the relief and rehabilitation of Tamils, and promote economic integration with Sri Lanka. A new treaty with Nepal should be negotiated. Faster economic growth of Nepal and job creation there should be our priority and friendly external powers may be encouraged to get involved there.

Particular attention needs to be paid to relations with United States, with the projection of soft power. We must develop a basic strategy of parallel defence R&D and manufacturing cooperation with Russia and the United States, as well as Israel.

Finally, success in foreign policy depends on success in economic policy. Our diplomats should understand this. The Foreign Service should give up its generalist orientation and start developing expertise on specific areas and subjects. There should be far greater co-ordination between the ministries of external affairs, commerce, defence and science & technology.

K Subrahmanyam was formerly director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and convener of the National Security Advisory Board.

Mohan Guruswamy

India’s foremost priority should be to ensure international economic stability and work to reduce the usage of the US dollar as the preferred international reserve currency. The United States’ profligacy is uncurtailable and its appetite for debt undiminished. India can contribute by establishing bilateral currency trading relations with major trading partners. India must also support the enlargement of the Special Drawing Rights pool with the International Monetary Fund.

India also needs to engage China more seriously, both as a regional threat and a partner on international forums. It must also concern itself more seriously with its growing economic and political asymmetry with China. China’s hostility towards India does not seem to be diminishing and India must support cost-imposing opportunities that come its way. China cannot be allowed to indefinitely subsidise the sundry consumption appetites of US and Western consumers and hurt other low-cost production countries by taking advantage of its totalitarian regime.

India also needs to renew its military relations with Russia as the collapse of the Russian arms industry gives the United States and NATO a near monopoly on hi-tech arms such as fifth-generation aircraft. India must also reconsider its military commerce with Israel, given the costs it imposes on its relations with Muslim nations and in dealing with its own Muslim population. A reduced focus on the United States and compliance with its domestic laws will only enhance the quality of its relations with that country in the long run. India must not forget that along with China and the United States it will be one of the big three world economies in the next two decades or so. It must now learn to carry a big stick and walk, and even talk, softly.

Mohan Guruswamy is chairman and founder of the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Swaminathan S Ankelsaria Aiyar

The major foreign policy issue is undoubtedly security in the light of Islamic militancy. This has long been an issue in Kashmir, has now spread to the rest of the country. It has the potential to polarise Indian Muslims in ways that could seriously threaten internal stability. India on its own can do nothing to check the menace that threatens to take over Pakistan and Afghanistan. What can it do?

First, it needs to remain calm even in the face of fresh terrorist incidents like 26/11, and resist the temptation to bomb camps in Pakistan. Such bombing will do little damage and may even increase recruitment into the jihadi cause. Rather, India should offer military force reductions on the Pakistan border to enable the Pakistan army to move forces to the trouble areas bordering Afghanistan.

The Pakistani state is now threatened by the Frankenstein’s monsters that it once incubated, and is reluctantly acting against them. India’s strategic aim must be to enable Pakistani liberals to beat jihadis in the war for hearts and minds. This will have to be done subtly, so that Pakistani liberals are not “tainted” in domestic debates as Indian stooges.

Swaminathan S. Ankelsaria Aiyar is Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and consulting editor of The Economic Times.

Bharat Karnad

Four issues, I hope, will be foreign policy priorities for the Indian government. First, it must firm up opposition to signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or negotiating a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. The nuclear deal will be leveraged by the U.S. to get India to sign these, but neither treaty is in India’s long-term interests, mainly because India’s thermonuclear weapon designs are unproven and unreliable and will require physical testing. The argument should be that given the American reluctance to accept time-bound and full disarmament, countries such as India cannot afford to remain vulnerable.

Secondly, Pakistan has to be helped to right itself. India’s position that it will begin talking only after Islamabad starts “dismantling the terrorist infrastructure” is to presume that Pakistan government is in control of Pakistan. Composite talks ought to get rapidly underway and the lesser issues, like Sir Creek, formally resolved.

Thirdly, before China or some other extra-regional power intervenes in Sri Lanka, India ought to take the lead in hammering out an enduring “federal” solution for the country, with Tamils given some measure of autonomy in the north and north-east, and sufficient representation in Colombo. Economic and reconstruction aid and massive military assistance should be ample and forthcoming.

Finally, strategic co-operation with Indian Ocean littoral countries and with countries on China’s periphery should be enhanced, and “free market” agreements should be extended. This will geopolitically hedge in China and limit its political options and military reach.

Bharat Karnad is Research Professor at the Centre for Policy Research.

P R Chari

The major security challenges before India arise from its traditional concerns—Pakistan and China. The threat from Pakistan is multi-dimensional, including conventional conflict, sub-conventional conflict, cross-border insurgency and terrorism. There is, moreover, the danger of Pakistan losing control over its nuclear weapons and breaking up due to its inner contradictions, which has security implications for India.

A conventional conflict with China is a remote possibility, but it could instigate subversion within its vulnerable north-eastern states. More subtly, China is showcasing its development of Tibet, which contrasts vividly with what India’s non-development of its border regions. China has not abjured its traditional policy of spreading disaffection among India’s South Asian neighbours to box India within the confines of the subcontinent. The most important foreign policy issue before India will be crafting its relationship with the United States, while seeking meaningful relations with other power centres in the world like Russia, Japan and the European community.

India needs American support to meet the security challenges posed by Pakistan and China. India needs to craft its foreign policy, therefore, to respect American sensitivities on issues like climate change, but also join US efforts to stabilise Asia.

P R Chari is Research Professor at the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2009 02:49

Can some one put these ideas in graphical form. For example say one opinion maker and his five top priorities.

i bolded the options to mkae it easier. Also it shows the thinking among the experts.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Jul 2009 16:35

India Ambassador Discusses U.S. Relations

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708923969614007.html
By S. MITRA KALITA

S. Mitra Kalita, WSJ deputy global economics editor, sat down with India's ambassador to the U.S., Meera Shankar, to talk about the relationship between the U.S. and India and their respective new administrations. Here are some edited excerpts:

WSJ: Is India on the path to being a superpower?

India is not a superpower. I don't think we have aspirations to be a superpower. By virtue of our scale and the growth of our economy and the stability of institutions in India, India is poised to emerge as a significant actor in global affairs. But let us also remember that large portions of the Indian population will continue to be relatively poor. The overall scale of the economy will be huge, but per capita incomes will still be relatively low. This is a dimension which Indian politics has to take into account and be sensitive to.

WSJ: Could that result in India not entering discussions of geopolitical importance? Why did Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not speak up about the protests over Iran elections, for example?

India has really adopted a policy which seeks to avoid interfering directly in internal developments in other countries. We subscribe to democratic values and to a very vigorous democratic framework. The best way to promote this is through positive programs for democratic institution-building. We have contributed to the U.N. Democracy Fund, for example, and we have helped countries on constitutional issues and training in electoral practices.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 15 Jul 2009 19:02

Manmohan Singh reminds the world not to forget Africa in the race for development
.
.
.
Nowhere are the challenges that humankind faces more pressing than in the continent of Africa. NAM should work to give Africa’s problems and equally its prospects, preeminence in the global development agenda.”Many African nations have looked upon India to voice their concerns in the global polity, and the Non-Aligned Nations platform has been one such forum.

“Making Africa an active participant in global economic processes is a moral imperative”, he said. And like a marketing guru, throwing a bait, he added: “It also makes good economic sense.” Dr. Singh also spoke about India’s role in furthering the African continent’s concerns about being neglected by International bodies.

He said: “India is committed to develop a comprehensive partnership with Africa. As a first step, we held the first India-Africa Forum Summit in New Delhi in 2008. We are ready to work with other NAM countries to enhance our partnership in areas that are of priority to Africa.”

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Jul 2009 23:01

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 714839.htm

Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said NAM has a great stake in ensuring that steps planned to revive the global economy take into account the concerns of the developing countries.

"No Non-Aligned Summit has ever been in an economic and financial crisis of the magnitude that now grips the world," Singh said.

"This crisis, the worst in living memory, emanated from the advanced industrial economies, but the developing economies, the members of our Movement, have been the hardest hit," he said.

If the aftermath of the crisis is not carefully managed, and if the abundance of liquidity leads to a revival of speculative activities, the world may well see a period of prolonged stagflation, he added.

"The relevance of NAM has, hence, never been greater than today. Cooperation, trade and investment among our countries can contribute significantly to reviving world economy," he added.

Founded in September 1961, NAM now groups 118 member states, 16observer countries and nine observer organizations.

The Movement, which includes nearly two-thirds of UN member countries and comprises 55 percent of the world population, focuses on striving for the interests of developing countries all over the world.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 Jul 2009 23:40

Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Anyone read this book ?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 17 Jul 2009 23:47

shravan wrote:Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Anyone read this book ?

yes, basically it says how the Indians (Jaswant) was so sweet to talk but when it came to signing anything, the govt(then NDA) never signed anything of substance. nice narration.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 17 Jul 2009 23:54

ravi_ku wrote: yes, basically it says how the Indians (Jaswant) was so sweet to talk but when it came to signing anything, the govt(then NDA) never signed anything of substance. nice narration.

Thanks. I will read it.

negi · Post by **negi** » 18 Jul 2009 01:00

NAM is an international chai biskoot committee with no locus standi and real teeth; even Pakistan,UAE,SA and Afganistan are now members.

Infact our once cordial relations with IRAN too are not as cosy as they used to be , thanks to Unkil's paranoia and arm twisting.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 20 Jul 2009 08:33

Menon takes Saran ‘retirement’ plan

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon’s fate, post July 31, remains a suspense. Though there is a strong buzz that he would be accommodated in the Prime Minister’s Office, he is learnt to be making arrangements to go for a two-month vacation. This is exactly what his predecessor Shyam Saran did — he too had gone for a trek in Bhutan after retirement, to be named on his return as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the nuclear deal. Menon’s plans seem to be following the same path, and if all goes well, he may return as the Prime Minister’s pointperson for India’s neighbourhood.

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 20 Jul 2009 09:32

shravan wrote:Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Anyone read this book ?

Yes ... have read it ... gives a very good account of post-Shakti test negotiations between India and the US.

I found a very interesting review here as well ... some very good nuggets of information in this book review as well ..
http://atcweb.atc.tcs.co.in/sagar/engaging

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Jul 2009 11:40

g.kacha wrote:
I found a very interesting review here as well ... some very good nuggets of information in this book review as well ..
http://atcweb.atc.tcs.co.in/sagar/engaging

The article is correct that the book is for entertainment. They dont want to analyse US foreign policy, on Indians since they dont want anything in the public info. They have been doing secret policy on India for several decades.

While the book can be read as "entertainment," I was very disappointed with it on several counts. There is very little by way of introspection and analysis of past US foreign policy, especially as it relates to India.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 20 Jul 2009 11:52

ravi_ku wrote:
shravan wrote:Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, and the Bomb

Anyone read this book ?
yes, basically it says how the Indians (Jaswant) was so sweet to talk but when it came to signing anything, the govt(then NDA) never signed anything of substance. nice narration.

Easily available on the net

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2009 00:22

RaviBg wrote:Menon takes Saran ‘retirement’ plan

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon’s fate, post July 31, remains a suspense. Though there is a strong buzz that he would be accommodated in the Prime Minister’s Office, he is learnt to be making arrangements to go for a two-month vacation. This is exactly what his predecessor Shyam Saran did — he too had gone for a trek in Bhutan after retirement, to be named on his return as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the nuclear deal. Menon’s plans seem to be following the same path, and if all goes well, he may return as the Prime Minister’s pointperson for India’s neighbourhood.

I hope he gets appointed as point person in charge of economics, trade, WTO and environment and deal with Russia, China and US. There is a keen need for such a position.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 21:38

Many years ago I reviewed the KRC report for BRM. While reviewing it I came across a methodolgy to evaluate the factors that led to the Kargil surprise and the underlaying cause for the factors. To do this I used spreadsheeet thats included in the article. In engineering terms its fishbone analysis with the appropriate factors for Intl Relations.

The recent S-e-S and earlier encounters (JLN escalating to UN, LBS at Tashkent, IG at Shimla, ABV at Lahore, MMS at Havana and Sharam-el-Sheikh) between Indian and TSP Prime Minsters have always resulted in a percieved net loss or giving up of Indian interests. It would be instructive to do a factors analysis of how this comes about.

KRC Report: A commentary

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jul 2009 23:07

X-posted...
China’s migraine is India’s K -Valley balm--New Indian Express

R Vaidyanathan

First Published : 18 Jul 2009 04:01:00 AM IST

FORMER US Secretary of State Madeline Albright correctly called Pakistan as the international migraine. But she did that recently much after her official tenure. She was not wrong in calling Pakistan by that name, except she was very late. These are the ‘war’ veterans, namely ‘wise after retirement’.
Now China is having its migraine in the form of its Xinjiang (Uyghur) autonomous province where over 150 deaths have been reported in violence.

The issue is the conflict between Uyghurs who are followers of some sort of Sufi Islam _ but getting radicalised _ and the Hun Chinese. The area in the western part of China is rich in minerals and oil and China is setting up large factories there. The original population proportion in the fifties _ of 70 to 30 in favor of Uyghur _ has changed to 30 to 70 recently due to the encouragement given by the Chinese politburo to Hun Chinese to move in to this province.

There are very many smaller ethnic groupings in that province but there is resentment against Hun Chinese as they are perceived to be dominating.

The Uyghur was originally with the East Turkistan province and it was merged with China after the revolution.
Actually, there was supposed to have been a meeting of East Turkistan leaders and Mao but the plane they travelled to Beijing met with an accident and the leaders perished. Anyhow China integrated the province after some local Uyghur leaders warmly welcomed it. Of course, China was happy to consider it as a autonomous province as long as it was as per the Chinese idea of autonomy. During the last few years, the resentment among the Uyghurs was coming into the open and, of course, encouraged by the US _ as part of its China Containment policy _ they have also started to talk about East Turkistan. Chinese have been dealing with any dissidence in its provinces like Tibet by hitting them hard, hitting them longer and hitting them stronger.
China is not sophisticated in dealing with its restive provinces. Just send the Army and hit the splitters or terrorists as they are called. Uyghur issue is variously described as ethnic and also as radical Islam in conflict with Communist China. Pakistan, which prides itself as the beacon light of global Islam, has been very prompt in handing over Uyghur leaders to China which has promptly executed them. The same Pakistan is so reluctant to deal with terrorists who ravaged Mumbai from its soil! Now the jeans-clad jihadis in Kashmir Valley _ also originally talked about ethnic upraising encompassing all communities but very soon it has become the hot bed of radical Islam. Uyghur could become radicalised and then it will be war between radical Islam and Communist china. History repeats. When Hitler invaded Russia, Fascism met with Stalinism.
West got saved. Let it be noted that the future of India as a civilisation is dependent on the war between radical Islam and Mao’s China.

This will be encouraged by the US similar to jihadis trained and funded by the US against Russia. The local left in India (which is currently only active in JNU canteen) will suddenly find lots of problems with radical Islam _ the same way the imperialist war became people’s war after Hitler attacked Russia.
Pakistan Army will be caught between “eternal friend” and “loyalty to Ummah”. The result of the Uyghur upraising is going to be drastic on China’s views on Kashmir Valley.
It will also have drastic impact on our local red. India should play a double game. It should encourage Uygurs and also resettle large number of peasants from UP and Bihar in to Kashmir Valley, following the illustrious example of China. India should form a grouping with Turkey and all the Central Asian countries _ ending with -stan _ and encourage East Turkistan and its Sufi Islam. In the north of China India should try to foment problems through Mongolia. So China will have splitters in the South (Tibet) and West (Uyghurs) and the North (Mongols).
The graver the situation in Xinkiang the better for India unless the US tries to bring all Taliban together and hand over Pakistan to them to contain China. It is important to note that the US adopts a use-and-throw attitude to other countries.
Not like condoms more like toilet papers since the former is treated well before use but the latter is treated badly both before and after use. It is not going to be worried if Taliban rules Pakistan or Afghanistan as long as the US is not having any terror attacks.
In any case, Pakistan as we know today will not be there in the next few years since it is going to a ‘mridangam’ situation of getting hit on both sides by China and the US-supported good Taliban (or bad Taliban). When Pakistan disappears as it exists today, then the jean-clad jihadis in K-Valley will suddenly find that keeping jeans is more important than szadi. The only negative possibility for India is a deal by which the US tries to hand over Pakistan along with K-Valley to good Taliban.
But in such a situation we can always join with China to hit hard hit long and hit strong the splitters. Any which way the Chinese migraine is balm to our Valley.

The author is Professor of Finance, Indian Institute of Management- Bangalore, and can be contacted at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

The views are personal and do not reflect that of his organisation.
---------

I think in addition to this the option of Falun Gong has to be nurtured.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Jul 2009 02:42

Just my humble disagreement with Vadyaji's predictions. I will put my bet on TSP not collapsing in the next few years, and PRC not turning against TSP. PRC can simply prod its implants in TSP and POK to increase the pressure and bite on India. In return TSP can help in withdrawing the bite from the Uighurs. In fact, PRC can counter US pressures through the Uighurs, by promising to create enough trouble on the Indian/POK/AFG front in return.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Jul 2009 00:01

brihaspati wrote:Just my humble disagreement with Vadyaji's predictions. I will put my bet on TSP not collapsing in the next few years, and PRC not turning against TSP.

We all know that. Geo strategy and geopolitcs is formed over 50-100 years and dont change due to small events.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jul 2009 18:59

Continuing from the "Sharm-el-Sheikh Harikiri" Thread.

somnath wrote:About non alignment, it was always a forum for a bunch of guys talking anti imperialism one day in Havana (or New Delhi!!) and taking the second flight off to NY/Washington with the biggest begging bowl to ask for more money from the US..

Now wouldn't you want that bunch of guys who fly off the NY/Washington after a NAM jamboree, to rather fly to New Delhi instead with their begging bowls, simply because they trust New Delhi more than they trust Washington D.C.. Some day when India's has deeper coffers this may be the case. Until then we can continue to have NAM jamborees.

somnath wrote:The member countries were of various shapes and sizes and had virtually no congruence of interest barring another platform to vent frustration of being what they are (irrelevant banana republics) on the US!!

Yes NATO too has countries of various sizes. One wonders why NATO headquarters is in a country like Belgium, which is a pygmy compared to USA!
All NAM countries have some advantage of geography, minerals, raw materials, markets, voice and voting rights in the UN and other fora, etc. which can be harnessed in India's cause some day.
If the price to pay for these benefits is to visit a NAM Conference, listen to a few (banana-)countries for a few minutes, show some sympathy for these countries, then the price is payable.

somnath wrote:Big powers negotiate bilaterally, or in smaller groups on congruent objectives..Our foreign policy will always be "independent" - the way I define it is whether any part of our policy is against our "self interest"..If it is, it doesn't matter if we vote against Iran in the IAEA (which was ABSOLUTELY) in our interest, BTW)..

There will be fora, where we act like a large independent country, and fora where we act like a sympathetic voice of the oppressed. It is not mutually exclusive. We can do both.

somnath wrote:NAM is for the smaller fish, doing what they have done all their lives, losers who make noise and influence nothing..We need to be puching at our weight now, influencing events..That would be done when we sit down with the US on major issues (like AfPak), not visiting NAM jamborees..

That is an immature high-school statement.
Girl - I too look good, so I ought to be hanging around with the cheer-leaders and other gorgeous girls. Hanging around with all those small, fat and bespectacled girls is bad for my image.

A good connection to the small, fat, bespectacled girls can ensure that you have a bigger following in numbers, and may be elected as Student Speaker, they can help you out with your homework and research, you can borrow something useful from them in time of your need, etc.

Now if you are a gorgeous girl, the others will take you in the cheer-leading teams anyway. There is no need to act small or wear glasses to the cheer-leading events.

I return to my male mentality now.

You can play with the big boys and go to NAM jamborees. There is duality but no conflict here.

In fact India and Brazil have gained more weight at the WTO negotiations because we profess to champion the cause of the disadvantaged.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 27 Jul 2009 20:46

RajeshA, these NAM worthies, with all their natural resources et al, dont sell their resources to the NAM leaders..They sell it, privately, to the highest bidder..Ditto with their votes in UN etc - sold to the highest bidder..Trade unionism of the NAM kind is good for the jamboree, after that, its back to national (or more likely ruler) self interest! No one's naive enough anymore (if they were ever!) to pay anything real for some NAM sympathy..

Our presence at NAM adds nothing but anachronism to our global posture. Here we are trying to negotiate a better deal for us ( and us alone, not for the entire third world!) with the major powers - our presence does nothing to increase our leverage in the power forums of the world, it only increases the irritation of our interlocutors..

You are right about the NATO - thats also an anachronism. Hence you see that the probably least enthu member of NATO is the US! The biggest engagements of the US now are outside NATO...

Our stand in WTO has got nothing with our championing of any "oppressed" people's cause..In fact most of our positions cause no mean harm to the bloc of least developed countries (like Bangladesh)..Our positions are based on supreme national interest, couched in pious platitudes. Reason we get heard is because we matter, so does Brazil, Bangladesh doesnt bring a 1.2 trillion dollar economy with a (recession time) 7% growth rate to the table - as simple as that..WTO again, is a big boys club - with the small boys only in attendance..We play the game well there..