Bharat Rakshak

somnath wrote:Your basic premise seems to be that there is something in common between all NAM members - fact is there is nothing but fuzzy anti Americanism.

somnath wrote:There is no "bang" for the NAM platform for any dollar we spend..Being a NAM leader through the decades did not help our case when OIC was taking our trip repeatedly (and OIC consist of predominantly NAM members!).

somnath wrote:The African potentates do not give us a bargain on their resources access on NAM connections - they give it to whoever pays them (personally more than the state, of course!) the biggest buck..We learnt that rather late, and now we are recovering some ground..

somnath wrote:Our Africa initiative in Delhi last year (or was it the year before?) had more bang for our buck than all the NAM sessions we have attended till date..Bring those leaders in, show them the money, and buy off thier natural resources (and votes in the UN) - thats all that is to the usefulness of Africa for example...Tools for ME will be different, and ditto for Latam..

somnath wrote:The irritation of interlocutors is not a "log kya kahenge" syndrome. It is about the image we want to present..

somnath wrote:When we do an Africa summit of all African leaders in Delhi cooking deals, thats a rational initiative..

somnath wrote:attending NAM only brings back our image of the "dark days" of the '60s and '70s and '80s...Wasted decades when all we did was America bashing in the company of lesser mortals..It was quite shameless in a way, bash America one day and plead for another shipment of PL480 wheat the next

US President Barack Obama said the US and China will "shape the course of the 21st century" as he opened high-level talks in Washington.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 7:24PM BST 27 Jul 2009

Mr Obama said he was under 'no illusions that the United States and China will agree on every issue' Photo: REUTERS
To the satisfaction of the Chinese at talks designed to usher in a new era of friendship, "not confrontation", Mr Obama said that the ties between the two powers were "as important as any bilateral relationship in the world".

"That reality must underpin our partnership. That is the responsibility we bear," he said at the first meeting of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Washington.

Mr Obama said he was under "no illusions that the United States and China will agree on every issue", but insisted closer co-operation on a range of challenges from lifting the global economy to nuclear proliferation and climate change was vital for the whole world.

In what appeared to be a co-ordinated new slogan, both Mr Obama and Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, who sent a message to the meeting, said they sought a "positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship".

The talks are a revamped version of a meeting launched by George W Bush that focused solely on economic issues.

The new dialogue, to be held every year in alternate capitals, involves the US state department and Chinese foreign ministry and firmly underlines China's growing global footprint.

Beijing sent 150 officials to Washington for dozens of meetings with their US counterparts, bringing much of the capital to a virtual standstill.

The Chinese are still sensitive about their inferior status and pushed hard for Mr Obama to open the meeting, according to sources close to the administration, because "they are still looking for validation".

But the hosts were happy to pay tribute to China's ascendance and were optimistic about its ability to act as a responsible member of the global community.

Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, made only brief reference to China's poor human rights record, which used to loom much larger in discussions.

Speaking just weeks after the eruption of ethnic violence in China's Muslim-majority Xinjiang province, which left at least 192 people dead, Mr Obama said: "We strongly believe that the religion and culture of all peoples must be respected and protected, and that all people should be free to speak their minds. That includes ethnic and religious minorities in China."

But he bracketed his criticism with acknowledgement of China's great "ancient culture" and the vibrant contribution of Chinese Americans to the US.

For the Chinese, Dai Bingguo, the state councillor, acknowledged the two states "could never be the same", and echoed his hosts by saying neither country could solve the world's problems alone.

"We are actually all in the same big boat that has been hit by fierce wind and huge waves," Mr Dai said of the economic and other crises.

The strongest message behind the scenes from Timothy Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, and his staff was that Americans are learning to save more and spend less, meaning China cannot rely on exports to the US for its growth and will have to raise domestic consumption.

The Chinese, holding $801.5 billion (£485 billion) of US treasury debt, meanwhile sought further explanations of what the Obama administration plans to do about the soaring deficits.

Though expectations are low for immediate breakthroughs on a variety of sticking points, even committed China watchers have been surprised by the speed of the growth in bilateral relations.

"There will be areas without a lot of traction," said Drew Thompson, director of China studies at the Nixon Centre think tank, running from the value of yuan to the Dalai Lama and intellectual copyright protection. "But if you don't start to build a relationship you will never achieve the progress that you want.

"There are a lot of things we can't get done without having China on board, and the Chinese are learning that they have a new role and they are leaving big footprints around the world. A certain responsibility comes with that," he added.

somnath wrote:What I am uncomfortable is anti Americanism for the sake of it - so vote against Iran is a sellout because US wanted it, stand against the expansion of the jurisdiction of UN is sellout to US, nuke deal is a sell out to US, for heavens sake even a teeny weeny EUVA is a sellout - never mind that each of these have solid national self interest reasons behind....

somnath wrote:I do feel uncomfortable in a forum that has no objectives of its own besides anti Americanism..that has got nothing to do with "Americans kya kahenge"..

somnath wrote:It seems that we are yet to outgrow a colonial hangover...By attending NAM, we meet a bunch of guys as equals who are clearly lesser mortals

Anti-Americanism is not THE objective behind NAM, but rather it is a quest to retain a modicum of independence in international dealings with superpowers.

Funny, this almost sounds like 'racism', 'casteism'.

somnath wrote:Why does one have to be "aligned" to a non aligned movement to frame independent policies?

somnath wrote:NAM at its best was nothing more than a camp of Soviet proxies..

somnath wrote:Well international pecking orders are very casteist - we are not in the game to change the order, just to get a seat for ourselves in the order...For the "lesser" guys, well too bad..

You can enter the club as the lowest caste. Of course there will be others outside the club whom you can . Inside the club, no one is going to take you seriously. Why? Because we went into the club without ever fighting a war with any other power, and have not earned ourselves the right of passage. So be ready to be treated like $hit in this exclusive club. Unadulterated Pro-Americanism will get you nowhere, except you will remain in the 2nd rung for a lot longer, than there is a need for.

somnath wrote:

You can enter the club as the lowest caste. Of course there will be others outside the club whom you can . Inside the club, no one is going to take you seriously. Why? Because we went into the club without ever fighting a war with any other power, and have not earned ourselves the right of passage. So be ready to be treated like $hit in this exclusive club. Unadulterated Pro-Americanism will get you nowhere, except you will remain in the 2nd rung for a lot longer, than there is a need for.

Not true. In the 21st century, entry to the club will not be by fighting wars. China is not gaining entry because of the Korean war..We are not going to be offered entry because of any war we fought/or not offerd because of what we didnt! Entry to the club is not a matter of invitation, its a matter of right - and only a few develop that right..It is on the basi of national power muscles - economic and military..And there is no question of whether someone takes us seriously or not...

That is the definition of a caste order in the high table - we dont need to fight wars to define it..

somnath wrote:UK talks to us not as an ex-colony, but as the home base of the owner of its largest steel company (ies), its marquee car brand, one of its largest s/w employers, owner of one of its largest oil companies, and its largest potential defence customer...Not to mention as an investment destination that all British companies salivate over...

somnath wrote:Withstanding pressure by "standing" in numbers?! When did that ever happen? Which non aligned country came to Yugoslavia's defence when super powers were balkanising the country?

I don't remember anybody suggesting that NAM was a military alliance.

somnath wrote:Indefatigable will etc is a bit of talk..Finally the "hard" things matter..Are we in the bidding process for Africa's resources? Are we in the frontlines of changing IMF's mandate with our dollars? Are we in a position to mount serious naval expeditions? Are we in the "space race"? Are we influencing WTO negotiations? the world looks at these s symbols of hard power and respects its proponents..

somnath wrote:Conduct of power is not the same across centuries..We will not again have the scenario of a super power on borrowed money and increasingly dysfunctional economy (aka UK between the two wars)..We will not have a major power coming into being just by forcing wars on neighbors (aka Germany in the '30s)..We will not have a power that comes out of the barrel of a gun held by an impoverished man (aka Soviet Union)

somnath wrote:Power is about having the capability, military and economic..And then the intent to drive an agenda with it, not of wars, but of influencing world events..

somnath wrote:UK is still a major power - and it was but an example of interaction with major powers..The same can be extended for the US, China, France, whatever...

somnath wrote:

I don't remember anybody suggesting that NAM was a military alliance.

So NAM was not a military alliance, it never had wherewithals to become an economic alliance, member states had no congruity of political objectives barring anti Americanism - Ergo, it is a gathering of anti American rhetoric..Exactly my point!

You can fault him for misplaced trust, you can rake him down for tactical problems in his dealings with Pakistan, but it is clear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh works on a vision for the sub-continent, which he believes he shares with one other man: Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

That vision is implicit in his opening statement that India cannot wish away Pakistan. "We should be good neighbours. If we live in peace, as good neighbours do, both of us can focus our energies on the many problems — our abject poverty that confront millions and millions of people in South Asia. If there is cooperation between us, and not conflict, vast opportunities will open up for trade, travel and development that will create prosperity in both countries," he said.

This also means that no matter how strong the opposition, the PM is likely to find some way of reopening dialogue with Pakistan, because of a deeply held belief that as neighbours, India and Pakistan have to keep their channels open. Singh had tried once before to delink India-Pak dialogue from terror attacks, when he pushed for a joint anti-terror mechanism that was intended to draw fire, while keeping the dialogue intact.

It's clear that the country is not yet ready for any substantive expanded dialogue with Pakistan at this moment when Pakistan is yet to take any credible action against the terror infrastructure.

But the PM remains convinced that "dialogue and engagement is the best way forward". That's an argument many in this country will accept, the problem is it's impossible to delink dialogue from terror attacks.

Does India trust Pakistan to take the right steps? Clearly, a cursory look at Pakistan in its present straits doesn't fill anyone with confidence. But the PM is willing to give Islamabad a lot more space than the average Indian would.

"Let me say that in the affairs of two neighbours, we should recall what President Reagan once said — trust but verify. There is no other way unless we go to war."

The PM also made it clear that his vision would depend on the Pakistan leadership taking the kind of steps necessary to help him go the rest of the way. "I hope and pray the leadership in Pakistan will have the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia."

Philip wrote:The PM can put his "peace dream" with Pak in his pipe,smoke it and pass it around to pak too! His dream is India's nightmare.The only kind of "Peace" that Pak wants with India is a "Piece" of Kashmir,a piece of Kutch,a piece of Siachen,and a piece of flesh from ordinary Indians,demonstrated so "peacefully" during 26/11.

He has dealt the most devastating blow to Indian foreign policy ever seen,since the catastrophe of '62.He has managed somehow not just to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,but rewarded the terror rapist Pak,whilst punishing its victim,the nation!

somnath wrote:

Philip wrote:The PM can put his "peace dream" with Pak in his pipe,smoke it and pass it around to pak too! His dream is India's nightmare.The only kind of "Peace" that Pak wants with India is a "Piece" of Kashmir,a piece of Kutch,a piece of Siachen,and a piece of flesh from ordinary Indians,demonstrated so "peacefully" during 26/11.

He has dealt the most devastating blow to Indian foreign policy ever seen,since the catastrophe of '62.He has managed somehow not just to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,but rewarded the terror rapist Pak,whilst punishing its victim,the nation!

Wow! A lot of us are prone to exxageration, but this takes the cake!!Last I checked, Pak is still fighting militants all over the place, we are only talking to them about the terrorism angle, they agreed to make "balochistan" a bilateral issue (akin to us agreegin to discuss Assam with them), they are still out of the cricket world cup, and the latest Bloomberg news download on pak is quite a depressing litnay of suicide bombers and Mushrraf...But we are in a 1962 situation!!

Philip wrote:The PM can put his "peace dream" with Pak in his pipe,smoke it and pass it around to pak too! His dream is India's nightmare.The only kind of "Peace" that Pak wants with India is a "Piece" of Kashmir,a piece of Kutch,a piece of Siachen,and a piece of flesh from ordinary Indians,demonstrated so "peacefully" during 26/11.

He has dealt the most devastating blow to Indian foreign policy ever seen,since the catastrophe of '62. He has managed somehow not just to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,but rewarded the terror rapist Pak,whilst punishing its victim,the nation!

...
"He (Krishna) is proving to be the former home minister Shivraj Patil whom Congress had to get rid of ultimately. It's only that he is taking much less time in proving to be another Shivraj Patil," senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha told reporters outside the Parliament.
...
Sinha said Patil, who resigned in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror strikes last year after coming under attack for his handling of internal security issues, had taken some time in "destroying" the home ministry but Krishna "will do the same to external affairs ministry in very little time".

The BJP leader also questioned the need for finance minister Pranab Mukherjee to intervene in the debate in the presence of Krishna.

"We saw a very strange incident in Lok Sabha on Thursday. Government fielded finance minister Pranab Mukherjee to intervene in the debate. For the FM to intervene in the debate when the external affairs minister was present was strange.

"The Prime Minister and the finance minister will not be around on all occasions to hold his (Krishna's) hand," Sinha said.
...

RaviBg wrote:

"The Prime Minister and the finance minister will not be around on all occasions to hold his (Krishna's) hand," Sinha said.

chetak wrote: The next areas where we can expect our fearless leader and renowned economist to be economical with the truth is for sure the two agreements proposed by the US. The first is the logistics support agreement and the second is the Communication Inter-Operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement.

Both these agreements are land mines and have great potential for for being perpetual and unending headaches. The usa is squeezing the orchises hard.

The debacle of the EUMA is already playing out as expected.

Once they have us by the short and curlies, it's but a very short ride for our Armed Forces into afghanistan " where we will be fulfilling our global responsibilities as a world power".

Each party agrees to utilize its best endeavors, consistent with national priorities, to
satisfy requests of the other party

"Balochistan issue will haunt India in near future," Sinha told the Lok Sabha.

Raising a question that why Balochistan issue was included, Sinha said now Pakistan will raise the issue constantly before the world leaders.

Slamming Pak's U-turn on Hafiz Saeed, he said that Pakistan has freed Nov 26 Mumbai attacks mastermind LeT chief on lack of evidences. Despite being tightening noose on Islamabad, government included Balochistan issue for discussion, Sinha alleged.
Describing the drafting of dossier as a sensitive issue, he said that the drafting should be done carefully. He sought reply from the External Affairs Minister that where he was when drafting was done.

Sinha fired an array of questions on Government during the debate.

He asked whether Indo-Pak relations has widened or narrowed with this step?

He also sought reply from the government saying that it was a diplomatic failure by the government and one of the biggest mistakes witnessed by the country.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that no such dossier on Balochistan has been received.

Balochistan issue to haunt India in future: Yashwant Sinha

The EAM doesn't have to be politically strong

The PM appoints ministers who enjoy his confidence

RayC wrote:The fact that Pronob Mukhujay spoke in the Debate instead of the Foreign Minister indicates that though he is a political weakling, his Machiavellian acumen could not be given short shrift and so he was used to salvage the PM!

somnath wrote:

The EAM doesn't have to be politically strong

Not true, for any influential minister in a democracy, political backing is paramount - else he will be reduced to bureaucraticc platitudes..And precisely becasue foreign policy is so crucial to the broad agenda of the govt does the PM typically like to keep it close to himself..

The PM appoints ministers who enjoy his confidence

Again wrong - there are far too may compulsions..MMS did not like A Raja, he didnt have a choice..ABV wanted Jaswant Singh as Finance Minster, the RSS didnt...Ministry formation is always a compromise - hecen for important minitries (foreign policy, defence etc), the PM pretty much takes charge by appointing all these special envoys, OSDs in the PMO etc..

somnath wrote:In this govt, PM is probably the most politically influential minister after SG and MMS...

somnath wrote:

RayC wrote:The fact that Pronob Mukhujay spoke in the Debate instead of the Foreign Minister indicates that though he is a political weakling, his Machiavellian acumen could not be given short shrift and so he was used to salvage the PM!

In this govt, PM is probably the most politically influential minister after SG and MMS...

RayC wrote:The fact that Pronob Mukhujay spoke in the Debate instead of the Foreign Minister indicates that though he is a political weakling, his Machiavellian acumen could not be given short shrift and so he was used to salvage the PM!

It also indicates that the PM has lost faith with the FM (?) and maybe even SG? (?)

The FM is already being dubbed as Shivraj Patil Mark II!

RayC wrote:is Pronob a part of the PMO?

Both have not convinced!

RaviBg wrote:. . . He doesn't want an independent thinking EAM, as PM wants to drive the foreign policy. . . .

The PM has put Shashi Tharoor in EAM to do his bidding. I read in some article that Pranab was asked to respond so that Krishna being new wont screw up. He still managed to do it though