India-US Strategic News and Discussion

arun · Post by **arun** » 24 Apr 2011 10:18

Sadanand Dhume in a Wall Street Journal article datelined April 21 presses for India aligning with the US.

Sadanand Dhume has clearly got it wrong in this call as in my view the US is no “friend” of India. Simply put “Friends” do not arm and finance those such as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan who have an established track record of killing Indian’s :

It's Time to Re-Align India: The country can no longer afford to stand aloof from the world's superpower.

An alternate link to the article from the American Enterprise Institute to which Sadanand Dhume is attached:

AEI

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 24 Apr 2011 13:39

arun wrote:Sadanand Dhume in a Wall Street Journal article datelined April 21 presses for India aligning with the US.

Sadanand Dhume has clearly got it wrong in this call as in my view the US is no “friend” of India. Simply put “Friends” do not arm and finance those such as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan who have an established track record of killing Indian’s :

It's Time to Re-Align India: The country can no longer afford to stand aloof from the world's superpower.

An alternate link to the article from the American Enterprise Institute to which Sadanand Dhume is attached:

AEI

From the article

Will New Delhi back tougher sanctions, and possible military action, against Iran should the Islamic republic refuse to abandon its rogue nuclear program? Will it publicly stand by Israel, a stalwart friend and close defense partner? Will it prop up the ridiculous BRICS grouping, or see it for what it is, the figment of a Goldman Sachs analyst's imagination that serves as a vehicle for China's anti-American drive for power? Are India's core interests—the eradication of poverty and the maintenance of a multireligious democracy and open society—best pursued in opposition to the West or, despite occasional differences, under the rubric of a liberal international order underwritten by American power?

The funny part is that answers to none of these questions imply a closer indo-american relationship. And none of these rhetorical questions actually seem to be in India's interest.

If India does vote against Iran, then it will harm itself. Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons does not fulfill any Indian core interests. Nor does helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons help India. If we isolate Iran, we will pay the price when Americans withdraw from Afghanistan where a neo-taliban will take over and will have fall out all over the Subcontinent. We need Afghanistan free from Pakistan influence. The best way this is possible is via Iran. And I have not started to talk about oil and gas.

India has stood by Israel, if not publicly then quietly. But as one of the Indian defense ministers pointed out Indo-Israel defense relationship is all about money. None of the Israeli products are at the so called friendship prices.

BRICS is an vehicle for China's anti-American drive? Just like SCO? Really? Do you have some proof about this or this is a matter of conjecture.

If India's core interest, eradication of poverty and sustenance of a multireligious democracy and open society are best served by an alignment with the west, then why does this so called west end up providing support and sustenance to India's two biggest headaches, China and Pakistan? This is even if one is to ignore the fact that Afghanistan's state is half due to the American+Saudi+Pakistan shenanigans of 1980s.

Also why should India align itself and prop-up the american international system? It is not permanent nor it is just. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990-1. It was driven out of Kuwait. But still Iraq was kept under international sanctions for more than a decade, till its industry and economic vitality was crippled. Now the same play book is sought to be applied on Iran too. And how come aligning with the american international system help meet India's core interest ? I certainly hope that author is not advocating a role model of South Korea or Japan. Countries which are in thrall of the yanks and subsidize the entire american world world.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2011 00:49

Its the US based/inclined NRIs demanding India line up with US agenda or else!

Allowing foreign media into India has brought Indians to lobby India for foreingenrs inside india!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Apr 2011 02:02

Christopher Sidor wrote:
The funny part is that answers to none of these questions imply a closer indo-american relationship. And none of these rhetorical questions actually seem to be in India's interest.

They want to equate closer indo-american relationship with US interest relationship!
India interest is not even in the mix...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Apr 2011 07:07

ramana wrote:Its the US based/inclined NRIs demanding India line up with US agenda or else!

Allowing foreign media into India has brought Indians to lobby India for foreingenrs inside india!

I would say friendly relations with the US is a tactical need provided they truly burn their bridges with the Paks. But aligning with the US against China would be harmful, as that will give the Chinese the incentive to continue propping up the Paks. The need is to work simultaneously with all sponsors of the Paks.

A caveat is that one needs to be clear-eyed about the elites controlling the US. The poor fool Gaddhafi was taken aback that he was being attacked by the "African brother" Obama. Libyan money in US and European banks got frozen, not unlike what happened to the Russian Tsar in 1917.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Apr 2011 09:38

Pranav wrote:I would say friendly relations with the US is a tactical need provided they truly burn their bridges with the Paks. But aligning with the US against China would be harmful, as that will give the Chinese the incentive to continue propping up the Paks. The need is to work simultaneously with all sponsors of the Paks.

The 3½ Friends of Pakistan would be more than happy to build economic ties with India. However that will not translate into any viable strategic partnership. There will only be tactical cooperation that India will get in terms of intelligence cooperation, diplomatic understanding, etc.! Strategically the 3½ Friends of Pakistan are committed to Pakistan! Nothing changes there!

So working with China or USA or even KSA does not bring anything on the Pakistan front really. We cannot wean them off!

India will have to achieve her aims despite the 3½ Friends of Pakistan, and not because of them! The sooner India learns that, the less we would be disappointed.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Apr 2011 09:51

and even intel will be useless. Recall IN went on a wild pig chase in Arabian Sea based on intel reports from US to coordinates which were not correct. Coupled with DCH/Daod Gilani's scout work for TSP, wouldn't put it past them to cr wolf and see us chase ghosts while the real pigs land unopposed.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 26 Apr 2011 10:06

April 25, 2011, 7:20 p.m. EDT
IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bo ... =countdown

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

IMF sees China topping U.S. in 2016
According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China's economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now. Brett Arends looks at the implications for the U.S. dollar and the Treasury market.

And it’s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar.

It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.

More China news: U.S., China to hold economic talks in early May, Shanghai hit by tightening, China 2011 trade surplus may shrink to 2% of GDP

According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.

Most people aren’t prepared for this. They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s.

China’s economy will be the world’s largest within five years or so.
But they’re miscounting. They’re only comparing the gross domestic products of the two countries using current exchange rates.

That’s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates change quickly. And China’s exchange rates are phony. China artificially undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in the markets.

The comparison that really matters

In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.

Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.

Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.

Naturally, all forecasts are fallible. Time and chance happen to them all. The actual date when China surpasses the U.S. might come even earlier than the IMF predicts, or somewhat later. If the great Chinese juggernaut blows a tire, as a growing number fear it might, it could even delay things by several years. But the outcome is scarcely in doubt.

This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America. As a bond strategist in Europe told me two weeks ago, “We are witnessing the end of America’s economic hegemony.”

We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. for so long that there is no longer anyone alive who remembers anything else. America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power in the 1890s and never looked back.

And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The Age of China will feel very different.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 26 Apr 2011 10:24

RajeshA wrote: The 3½ Friends of Pakistan would be more than happy to build economic ties with India. However that will not translate into any viable strategic partnership. There will only be tactical cooperation that India will get in terms of intelligence cooperation, diplomatic understanding, etc.! Strategically the 3½ Friends of Pakistan are committed to Pakistan! Nothing changes there!

So working with China or USA or even KSA does not bring anything on the Pakistan front really. We cannot wean them off!

India will have to achieve her aims despite the 3½ Friends of Pakistan, and not because of them! The sooner India learns that, the less we would be disappointed.

Each sponsor is going to look at its own cost and benefit. India being a soft state in many ways, makes itself a tempting target for destabilization. As a first step, third parties need to be convinced that working against India through Pak or otherwise will be unsuccessful and also very costly. When India has the strength, the carrots, and the sticks, the sponsors will fall in line.

Ravi Karumanchiri · Post by **Ravi Karumanchiri** » 26 Apr 2011 12:31

^^^^ Rakshaks,

I largely agree with the bulk of what has been written in the several posts preceding this one (except for that IMF article), but I have a different take on things.

I could explain it at length, but it is late here and now, and a pithy statement will suffice, I think….

“With a friend like Pakistan, the US, China and Saudi Arabia have no need for enemies.”

Consider:
1) If Pakistan is the hub of transnational, Jihadi-inspired terrorism (which it is), and
2) If these terrorists are keen to destroy America (which they are), and
3) If these terrorists would like to abolish the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and replace it with a ‘mullahcracy’ (which they do), and
4) If these terrorists are duty-bound to “free” the Uighars from godless communism and bring them under Sharia-rule (which they will try, eventually), then
5) It is only a matter of time until Pakistan wears-out all of its “friends”. IMO, India should just bide her time, keep her powder dry, and watch this happen.

Already, Pakistan is at serious odds with America. One AQIP attack too far against the KSA, and that relationship will sour also. Then, when Pakistan has sufficiently alienated both America and Saudi Arabia, the TSP will come to expect far too much from China, and that relationship will spoil as well. Inevitable economics will fuel all of these fires; when America can no longer afford Pak-bound largess, and when China’s economy falters when the US bond market collapses. Public sentiments in the West and policy imperatives in all three Pak-friendly countries will push this dynamic even harder and faster.

As for that IMF article; China’s one child policy has placed an enormous crater in the middle of Chinese demographics. In time, this will severely constrain Chinese domestic buying power, as a typical Chinese household will consist of two breadwinners with one child and four grandparents all living under the same roof. This will mean that China will remain an export-focussed economy for the foreseeable future, certainly as long as the one child policy remains the rule with few exceptions, plus twenty years or so. With the impending fall of American economic hegemony, China will need a market to absorb her exports, and the only one with the buying power and growth rate will be India. China will eventually discard Pakistan for India, out of economic necessity, if for no other reason.

One penultimate thought: I am not entirely convinced that China’s support for Pakistan is entirely meant to counter India. Although I certainly agree; China has done a lot to keep India off-balance, notably support for Pakistan and insurgents within India, not to mention the border issues; I believe that the major reason China supports Pakistan is to diminish American influence there. Once America finally turns its back on Pakistan (which is inevitable), I believe that China will have less of a reason to be Pakistan’s best friend, and will find an opportunity to turn to India.

Lastly: No one should be confused about the dynamics at play. China is arming against the threats she perceives from America, not from India. China feels that it only needs to dull and delay India’s prospects with insurgency and uncertainty along India’s borders (not that I’m excusing this); but the greater military threat facing China is America, in the eyes of the Chinese leadership. Of this I am certain. At the same time, the greatest fear of the Chinese leadership is neither America nor India – it is the people of China themselves. I am certain of this too. The central committee of the Chinese communist party is hell-bent on maintaining economic growth, which is their only hope for preserving order and holding on to power. When that growth slows or falters, China will take a different path, WRT her relations with Pakistan and India. This too is inevitable. (Note: Last month, China posted her first monthly trade deficit in a very, very long time; attributed to rising commodity prices – a trend that is sure to continue.)

Altogether, this means that time, demographics and economics are all on India’s side.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 26 Apr 2011 13:05

^^RAvi-ji,

Interesting points, but IMO the generalisations are a bit too sweeping...

1. The "demise" of China as a result of one-child policy is hugely exxagerated...Japan has maintained a per-capita income of 35000 dollars for 20 years with a demographic that is far worse than what China is projected to have...China is only @ 4000 dollars right now - and there is no denying the amazing capacity for both investment (that a 3 trillion dollar export-driven reserves)and consumption (that a middle income 1.4 billion people economy) that the country can drive...India will keep being more important to China from a mercantilist perspective, but its a long way away from the sort of market that US or Europe are...

2. Dont be too hopeful about that Feb trade deficit announcement..The pressure on China for CNY reval is immense - and now its not just the US. In the BRIC meeting the undertone for everyone was finally large trade deficits with China..These sudden "deficit" numbers come in handy to display that their tide is turning!

Fundamentally, China does not consider India to belong to the same "class"...It never has..Of late it has started getting a bit more apprehensive given India's continuous rise and more importantly, ballyhoos with the West...So while China considers Us as its prime rival, it is also clear that it wants to keep Asia "clear" of any local rival...The "string of pearls" is a gross exageration of intent..But deep cultivation of Pak, and strenuous attempts to make inroads into SA are at least in parts about containing India..

there is no doubt that China will be rivalling India across the board in Asia - we are unlikely to "fight" a war, but a lukewarm contest will be the normal...We need to be prepared for that...

On the US, I have said this in the past, there is nothing better for India than to retain a US presence in AfPak...As long as Us maintains a presence, Pak military will keep having an issue in keeping its "strategic assets" on its side...Today, take the US away, and there is no fundamental difference of opinion/objective between the Pak army, Af Taliban, Pak Taliban, LeT or any of the islamist groups...they will all coalesce and direct their energies towards aset of common enemies - India and Afghanistan onwards to Central Asia...which is what really happend for much of the '90s...

A Us presence in the region means that Pak has to continuously do a losing balancing act, and never have the breathing space to concentrate its energies towards favourable outcomes...Today, it has to make do with the least worse of all outcomes possible...

For us, with US presence in Af, we can concentrate on preparing fo rhte real deal, which is the rivalry with China across Asia..It will require a bigger economy, and far more extensive footprint in trade and naval terms...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Apr 2011 17:32

ravi-ji, i like your analysis
i would add, the fiction of sanity in pakistan is portrayed by the army to its benefactors, who obviously know that they are being serviced by a hooker rather than being entertained by their girlfriend. the service provider is good, but sooner or later, even her charms will fade... and her inventiveness will dull and she will no longer be in demand...

the benefactors know this too

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 26 Apr 2011 22:45

Does anyone really buy into the "stable Pakistan is best for India" program anymore?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Apr 2011 00:23

UBanerjee wrote:Does anyone really buy into the "stable Pakistan is best for India" program anymore?

I will when Pakistan declares "A strong, stable, peaceful and prosperous India is in Pakistan's best interests." In fact, I kind of hope our future leaders would say the same.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2011 00:57

JEM said that same thing eons ago.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2011 03:01

Old Link but needs to be read again and agin to understand the last fotry years of America:

Southernization of America

Note th part of how the period was a throwback to America of the Robber Barons and think of the current financial crisis.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 27 Apr 2011 03:11

ramana wrote:JEM said that same thing eons ago.

Have our leaders said it?

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 27 Apr 2011 07:58

Mesa man pushes to keep brother's name on Sept. 11 memorial

The brother of a post-9/11 hate-crime victim feels victimized again nearly a decade later by Arizona legislation that would wipe Balbir Singh Sodhi's name off the state's memorial to the national tragedy.

Singh Sodhi, a 49-year-old Mesa gas-station owner, was gunned down on Sept. 15, 2001, by a man who told police that he was lashing out at "Arabs" after watching the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapse over and over again on television.

Singh Sodhi was a Sikh from India, but his attacker mistook his religious turban for an Arab head covering.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Apr 2011 08:29

On telecom security, India firm with China, gave in to US

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/on-te ... us/782117/

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2011 08:46

ramana wrote:Old Link but needs to be read again and agin to understand the last fotry years of America:

Southernization of America

Note th part of how the period was a throwback to America of the Robber Barons and think of the current financial crisis.

ramana garu,

the guy is whining about how he can't feel superior to the South anymore. he keeps rambling on an on about the South becoming part of America, and even goes so far as to lament that South is not the "step-child" anymore....

the Robber barons part has some truth to it. especially the open transfer of control of entire economy to finance harakiri. other than that, he is a typical elitist "liberal" from NE or West coast college campuses...white elitism is evident in hard Right wingers. in hard Lefties, so called "intellectual elitism" is very common. this guy is an example of the later.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2011 09:13

In mid 90s Economist was also whining about how US was changing and becoming Southernised.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2011 09:25

this might be OT, but i think the whole academia being "scared" of "South" mentality is blown out of proportions and in the present day might actually be non-existent. but present day is still a continuation of 20th century frame of mind. when that changes, i suspect US mainstream political thinking will also change. beyond that the circus drama will continue of course.

anyway, that's OT and end of discussion.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 28 Apr 2011 19:54

The other side of the argument.
How to lose friends and alienate people

04.28.2011 · Posted in Foreign Affairs, Security

India’s decision to reject US fighter planes is strategic stupidity

New Delhi, it is reported, has shortlisted two European vendors for its long-drawn procurement of fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force. Now, military analysts can have endless debates and even objective opinions on which among the American, European and Russian aircraft is technically superior and better suits the stated requirements of the IAF. Financial analysts can have similar debates and objective opinions on which is the cheapest or the best value for money. These opinions may or may not converge. But when you are buying 126 planes worth more than $11 billion dollars, you are essentially making a geostrategic decision, not a narrow technical/financial one.

The UPA government’s decision to reject both American proposals, of the F-16 and F/A-18, demonstrates either a poor appreciation of the geostrategic aspect or worse, indicative of a lingering anti-American mindset. While the US ambassador has resigned, whether or not it will prove to be a setback for India-US relations remains to be seen. Damaging the careers of pro-India American officials is a silly thing to do.

This move will most certainly reduce India’s geopolitical leverage with the US military-industrial complex, at a time when India needs it most. From the unfolding dynamics in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, to the changing balance of power in East Asia, to UN Security Council reform, to a number of geoeconomic issues, the United States can take positions that can have long-lasting consequences for India’s interests. Is the United States more likely to be sympathetic to India’s interests after a $11 billion contract—which means much needed jobs for the US economy —is awarded to someone else? Long used to complaining that the United States doesn’t care for India’s interests, will awarding the contract to some European firms help change the situation?

The argument that the European bids were ‘technically’ superior are not entirely credible either, for two reasons. First, at sufficiently high levels of technology, the difference between the planes on offer is marginal. To suggest that the European models are vastly superior defies logic, because some of the world’s most powerful air forces are flying F-16s, leave along F/A-18s. Second, the notion that combat requirements can be perfectly defined at the time of procurement is false. It is the combination of man and machine that wins battles. The focus on machines ignores the reality that much swings on the man flying it. Moreover, given the nuclear deterrence relationships obtaining in the subcontinent and across the Himalayas, those planes might never see an aircraft-to-aircraft dogfight in their lifetimes. For other tasks like air support for ground operations, the specifications are even lower.

What about those alphabet soup agreements and fine-print contracts that the US insists that India sign, that might prevent the planes from being used when needed? Those who make these arguments do not understand what war means. War means all bets are off, and India will do whatever necessary to protect its interests. While the existence of those agreements was a usual bargaining chip for India, to get a discount, to believe that such arguments will hamstring India’s military options is naivete. The government might not need to spell this out in public, but it should know it.

It has been this blog’s argument that in the contemporary geopolitical environment, India’s interests are best served by being a swing power, holding the balance between the United States and China. It must enjoy better relations with each of them than they have with each other. It must also have the credible capacity to give pleasure and inflict pain. In this context, buying fighter planes from the United States would have been an excellent move.

And who has New Delhi shortlisted instead? European companies. The European Union is a bit player in the international system, zealously safeguarding its own legacy position at the United Nations Security Council, the G-20, the World Bank, IMF and other places, against India. Italy is engaged in process of blocking India’s UNSC candidature. An order placed with Eurofighter or Rafael isn’t going to change its plans. EU busybodies can be found everywhere from inviting Kashmiri separatists to speak, to attending court hearings of Binayak Sen. Some small EU states almost wrecked the India-specific waiver that the United States was obtaining at the Nuclear Supplier’s Group. When it’s crunch time in Afghanistan, does anyone in New Delhi think that the EU will or can make any move that’ll safeguard India’s interests? Why is India being gratuitously generous to Europe when there is much to gain from giving the contract to the United States?

Yes, France, Britain and Germany are countries that India must engage. There are ways to allow them to benefit from India’s growth process—from power projects to manufacturing to services. The fighter aircraft contract need not be awarded to European firms, because it has higher strategic opportunity costs.

The downshot is that the UPA government has squandered a unique opportunity to gain leverage in Washington at a crucial time when closer ties are in India’s interests. It first took way too long to decide, dragging the procurement process even China built its own new fighter plane. It now decided to pick two vendors who might well sell a technically superior and cheaper product, but do no more than that. To put it mildly, this is strategic stupidity.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 28 Apr 2011 20:46

India has to buy planes as per IAF's requirement and defense need. Why should pleasing Unkill be a consideration in this?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Apr 2011 20:50

So let's talk about strategic "stupidity"!

So some questions:

most certainly reduce India’s geopolitical leverage with the US military-industrial complex, at a time when India needs it most. From the unfolding dynamics in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, to the changing balance of power in East Asia, to UN Security Council reform, to a number of geoeconomic issues

In the unfolding dynamics of Af-Pak, considerations of India's interest have no bearing on United States. First it was not for America to decide with which countries Afghanistan has diplomatic relations and who can help and who can't! Moreover it tolerated Indian presence because it thought it could move Pakistan to cooperate more.

In the changing balance of power in East Asia, it is the US that is losing power and PRC gaining power! India is not really in a position to project power in East Asia, so India does not really have to lose anything!

As far as UN Security Council Reform is concerned all of the P5 are dragging their feet, and even though USA may have stated it publicly it would support a permanent seat for India in the UNSC, there is no saying when this would happen and whether USA would really support or even if it can clinch the issue!

As far as geoeconomic matters matter, India is the country posting a healthy GDP growth rate, while USA is in the doldrums!

Long used to complaining that the United States doesn’t care for India’s interests, will awarding the contract to some European firms help change the situation?

Would awarding the contract to United States change the situation? Is there some guarantee? Why hasn't that cooperation been forthcoming?

A few more questions to ponder:

Has USA helped India in strategic matters lately?
Has USA acted against Indian strategic interests?
Does USA listen to India's concerns?
Would USA promote India's strategic interests in the near future, if it gets the procurement order?
Would USA hurt India's strategic interests in the near future, if it doesn't get the procurement order

USA has been getting kicked in the butt by almost every country - from Pakistan, to China, to Iran, and even Saudi Arabia buying defense equipment from Chinese!

When USA is getting kicked in the butt, strategy says, we need to kick it too! Why?

Because despite all the kicks, it still has not realized that its power has receded, and it needs allies! USA can't really sell those planes anywhere except to Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan!

These are bit players when compared to India and India's reach and ambitions!

In Asia, India remains USA's most natural choice for partner because Asia is turning both Sinic and Islamic, and none really sits well with USA strategically speaking! But USA does not yet accept this truth and is willing to trade off its long term strategic need for India for short term tactical gains e.g. in Af-Pak.

There is only so much weaponry USA can give Pakistan, but that much, it has decided it would give anyway! So if India says no to USA planes, it does not mean USA can start giving Pakistan much more weaponry! But in order to get into India's good books, America could have stopped giving Pakistan any conventional weapons and delivering F-16s and drone technology, etc, which it did not! So why should America expect Indian indulgence when America gives scant regard to India's strategic concerns!

Now USA has been put on notice that USA has something to lose if USA does not listen to India's concerns. This message was sent by India without any fear that USA would throw its weight in favor of Pakistan! USA has enough problems with Pakistan at the moment!

Until USA learns it has to apply a lot more Omega-3 Fats butter onto us and listen to our concerns, it should not expect Indian indulgence! USA should have been a lot more forthcoming!

Actually India should have invested that amount of money for furthering the domestic aircraft industry, but Europeans are a good choice!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 28 Apr 2011 23:00

Received about 8 emails this morning. Topic was 'snub' to US. FWIW, the consensus is gloom in India lobby and glee in China lobby.Take with grain of salt until public 'leak' but it appears the wrath of Khan is about to manifest itself. Things in the works:

1. Series of articles in media and articles from Think Tanks about futility of pursuing strategic partnership with India. One popped up right on time; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 71440.html

2. GE-Wallahs saying 'litmus test' is order for 1,000 GE locomotives (I did not realize they were in the running).

3. NSG membership may now be a pipe dream as are some dual use tech stuff

4. As election season winds up, the 'outsourcing' issue will be brought back to the fore with a vengeance.

5. Can't vouch for accuracy but according to one email, BHO is 'personally PO'd' given his emphasis on trade with India.

6. Roemer may not be replaced until after 2012 election. The suddenness has little to do with BHO's campaign, apparently he bet the farm on Boeing/LM getting the deal and just quit in frustration when it did not materialize.

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 28 Apr 2011 23:07

Very well said RajeshA!!

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 28 Apr 2011 23:20

To be here is the opening

many in the Indian defense establishment are still wary of American intentions and United States military aid to Pakistan, India’s main adversary.

I have always wondered and brainstormed here with several of you, its fine and dandy for anyone including me to say that India won't put up with this or that from US, but at the end of the day, tough talk can only succeeed if there is some leverage. This is an opening. The defense guys et. al must sit together and have a serious conversation with their US counterparts. You want our moolah, then lets talk about this terrorist abomination called TSP first and the military aid you are supplying to them and your whitewashing their use of pigLeTs against us. Time to play hardball.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Apr 2011 00:24

That is one MUTU article . Common sense demands that it is in seller's interest to not to loose the deal by attaching unnecessary and potentially fatal strings to the goods which are meant to be used for the protection of health, wealth and well being of the customer. When MRCA process started there was no PRC or Afghanistan issue and no talk of American providing billions for Poaks to poke Indian eyes. I think both understand that in this changed geopolitical enviorenment its not business as usual. Uncle cant tie the elephant India with the similar kind of leash used for doggy Poaks or poodle folks. The strategic limitations have now been exposed. The ball is in US court. Indian messege is that they wont undermine the basic principle,independent decision making regarding national security.It will be toostupid to pay $ as well expose T..te to Uncle's grip and sing the strategic songs while taking blow after blow of terrorist activities from Uncle's Ashna. US inability to assure the full utilization of their Warbirds by India againts Poaks killed their prospects. Unlike other buyers of Uncle's maal, the possibility of war beteween india and its enemies remain high. We live in ugly neighborhood and need real time use of weaponary and not for the exhibition purpose.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 29 Apr 2011 00:43

AKA has been public with his disenchantment over US arms freebies to pak, but the US has done precious little to address it, apart from harping on strategic ties which apparently means only US interests and concerns need to be accomodated

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Apr 2011 01:07

Published on Apr 28, 2011
By John Elliott
India takes a NAM-style route on $11bn fighter contract: Riding the Elephant

This is a diplomatically brave decision that most observers never expected after India signed its nuclear power deal with the US in 2008. Numerous US officials from President Barack Obama downwards have lobbied hard for the $11bn multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) contract, indicating that it was expected as a nuclear thank-you. What seemed most likely therefore was that Lockheed or Boeing would be included – even though, as India knows, its supplies are unreliable – until the end of the process. Then the US would not give up until it had driven other bidders out of the contest.

The US offerings however did not match up to required standards during flight testing – nor did the MiGs. The F-18 failed tests in the cold and high Himalayas of Ladakh, and the F-16, flown by Pakistan, is long in the tooth. The Griffin fighter from Saab of Sweden has also been rejected.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Apr 2011 01:37

@Prem ^^^: "US inability to assure the full utilization of their Warbirds by India againts Poaks killed their prospects. "

I thought this down select was made solely by the IAF based on specific parameters.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Apr 2011 02:45

As previously mentioned^^^, the fallout is beginning:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 109993.cms

"The larger question though is whether the MRCA set-back to Washington will affect the broader US-India relations, which have been frequently bedeviled by trade spats and strategic misperceptions. Already, Washington is fuming about New Delhi not keeping its end of the nuclear deal bargain. The annual strategic dialogue between the two sides scheduled for April had to be deferred ostensibly because of regional elections in India, but some analysts have suggested that it was because of the nuke deal screw-up and the impending MRCA rebuff. The sudden resignation of US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer, coming within hours of the MRCA decision being made public, is also seen as a setback although Tellis believes it is not linked to the MRCA call. "

Managing this is going to be strategically expensive.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 29 Apr 2011 03:04

^^^ Puzzling why khan never considers the strategic fall-out of
-F-16s to Pakistan
-Headley flip-flop
- Kashmir flip-flop & closed door meetings with Hurriyat
- Incorrect maps of India while overstating Chinese territory (illegally occupied Tibet and Xingjiang)
- Blind eye to real Human Rights abuses in Pakistan and China while a laser focus on anything in India
- Support to dubious so called missionary organizations i.e., Worldvision and others in North East (that are actively working to destabilize)
- Others -- please free to add to the list

on the relationship with India

Right now they are pouting like the powerful parents of the girl who lost the beauty contest despite the parents connections. Kabhi kabhi merit se log aagee bad jaate hain.

Add to it they keep letting their psycho brat hitting the judge and due to their distorted worldview see nothing wrong with it. Afterall their psycho brat is entitled to this since they are the parents.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Apr 2011 03:04

Part of the game. They will understand, just as we understand that they have to supply weapons to Pakistan which Pakistan will use to kill Indians with, and I'm not talking about fancy F-16s and other big-ticket items. Further, as someone listed on another thread, we are in fact buying billions worth of aircraft and other equipment from them, and we will buy more - but not the F-18s or F-16s. No one needs to get their knickers in a twist on this issue.

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 29 Apr 2011 03:47

^^^
US just did not understand India's psyche and they always tried a Ayub, Zia, Saddam on India. Inspite of pouring in zillions in research, it just will never get India's civilizational DNA. It really needs to build a trustworthy relationship and not try to make India is some puppet.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Apr 2011 03:54

@JEM ^^^"They will understand, just as we understand that they have to supply weapons to Pakistan "
'They' are not the 'understanding' types. This has become a bit like the 'Khandan (no pun intended) ki izzat barbad hui' stock scene from the Hindi movies of the 1960s.

BHO (apparently) feels 'dissed'. Streetwise, there is the 'payback' phase to come just to show it's a two-way street. Neither the nuke deals nor the C-17 deals have fructified.

IOW, Naresh Chandra et al can say "The India-US relationship is bigger than this one arms sale" etc. But, the pushback will come with the same disclaimer.

BTW, FWIW, I don't see this as a India-Pak thing. It has moved on and the balancing will come WRT to PRC now that that Tibetans have appointed/elected a political head.

JMT 99% chance of being wrong.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Apr 2011 05:34

"Questioning whether these aircraft represented the best value for the IAF and the best investments for India overall, Mr. Tellis said to The Hindu that those in the U.S. who felt that India had settled for an aircraft over a strategic relationship would also conclude that “there is no reason why the administration should bend backwards to accommodate India.”

Mr. Tellis, formerly a senior advisor to the Ambassador at the U.S. embassy in New Delhi, a staff member of the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President, also had critical words for the manner in which the decision was made and announced.

He said that it only made things worse given that “the GOI knew full well the importance the administration attached to this sale... [and] a quiet intimation of the coming decision would have helped.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 819298.ece

We can of course, dismiss Dr. Tellis as a 'tool' etc. but the truth is IMHO, he's right. The pro-India lobby has been weakened.

Everything I'm hearing is really worrying. This has the potential to undercut those who have expended time, money and effort to promote the strategic relationship. The anger is palpable.

Well, the stunning Carla Bruni or vivacious/zaftig Angela Merkel better be prepared to deliver item numbers ...

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 29 Apr 2011 06:30

Cosmo_R wrote:We can of course, dismiss Dr. Tellis as a 'tool' etc. but the truth is IMHO, he's right. The pro-India lobby has been weakened.

Everything I'm hearing is really worrying. This has the potential to undercut those who have expended time, money and effort to promote the strategic relationship. The anger is palpable.

Well, the stunning Carla Bruni or vivacious/zaftig Angela Merkel better be prepared to deliver item numbers ...

The so called pro-Indian lobby is f-ed up lobby. There may good and genuine folks but along with them there are substantial number of others are there to only promote their business and I am sure about it. The anger can be due to loss of personal deals. If I am India, I will take this with a tonne of salt.

India does not need a lobbying in US. It is totally useless as USA is hellbent on being opposing to India strategically. As long as it keeps on singing that Pakistan is their need and it is just waste. US doesn't want to listen and what is that lobbying will do. All that lobbyists will do is go to India and tell it how better off India will be without JK and nukes.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 29 Apr 2011 06:43

All the US has to do is stop putting the breaks on EU selling high tech weapons to China. EU would be selling everything on the planet to China.

In fact, all the US has to do is, indicate to India that it would not stop EU from selling high tech stuff to China.

Italy and Austria hates India. UK is all for Kashmir joining with Pakistan and wants to dance to the tune of POK Kashmiris in the UK. France has been itching to sell high tech planes and weapons to the Chinese. Germany has no love for India. The rest of the EU pretty much could care less about India.

This is the strategy of cutting ones nose to spite the face by lefties of India. This is the lefties punching beyond their puny weight.