Many topics to respond to, so, will select a few:
I normally remove the poster's name - I prefer to discuss a topic, rather than the poster - but, will leave it for continuity.
krishna_krishna wrote:
To all masa bhakts this is all I say, this is "bharat rakshak" that means people who do raksha of our bharat and it is very important for the country to be free and preserve its strategic autonomy.
{First and foremost please find out the meaning of "Bhakti", then we can discuss "masa bhakts". Nothing to do with "followers of".}
Times have changed, but BRiets, especially the older ones, have been stuck in time. Even Indian PM has moved on:
Modi in WSJ wrote:
India has joined Washington in its calls for freedom of navigation, especially in the South China Sea, where China’s assertion of its territorial claims has unnerved neighbors. But on Wednesday the prime minister played down any friction with China, pointing to increasing trade and diplomatic exchanges between the two nations.
In the “relationship between China and the U.S., there are areas where they have substantial differences but there are also areas where they work closely,” Mr. Modi said. “This is the new way. If we want to ensure the success of this interdependent world, I think countries need to cooperate, but at the same time we also need to ensure that there is respect for international norms and international rules.”
There is a multi track mentality that has slid in. It is no longer a zero sum game. It is a very complex Venn diagram (actually discussed in detail in Yoga Vashishtha), where the interests of nations, political parties, as well as multi-nationals and local interests collide.
As it pertains to the "LSA", please let me know what the IN (Bharat bhakts) thinks about it. I am betting that the IN is perhaps the biggest backer of the LEMOA. I do not want to post other URLs because of BR penchant for labeling authors as paid, lifafa, etc (which has reduced BR to a biased site).
Bharat do not need it (not an absolute necessity)
And just to reiterate, I said this in 1997 or so (on BR), that India and the US will get close, not because I think it is a good thing, but because circumstances will force the two to get close - no options. However, I never dreamt that India would ever buy US items. All I meant was their policies would overlap in some areas. Good/bad/right/wrong is debatable and diff topic.
So, my point has always been - Bharat needs it (the alignment), it is in the best interest of Bharat. As I just posted, I think the IN would back the LEMOA. ????? (I would like comments on IN and LEMOA)
SSridhar wrote:NRao wrote:However, the reason I gave that example is that despite a US carrier visiting Hong Kong it did not prevent China from allowing it to do so for decades, but when it wanted to decline to do so.
India has the very same option. Signing any agreement does not bind India to behave blindly.
There even are NATO countries that decline to let the US to fly over, etc.
IMVHO, that is an incorrect comparison and does not add any weight to the pro-LSA argument.
India has also been allowing American Naval assets to dock for R&R, fuelling etc without any LSA just as China has been doing.
It is easier to decline when there is no agreement than when there is one even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.
Overflight is quite another matter. We should not confuse that with LSA.
In any case, the anti-LSA argument is infructuous at this stage because this government sees merit in that.
Multiple things
1) So, "my government does not want to sign LSA" has been proved wrong. India does, even under the UPA it did. This gov has watered it down it looks like. Nonetheless, India "needs" a LEMOA.
Let me go a step further and state that the IN needs LEMOA for the IN to perform her job, tasked to her by the GoI, smoothly. I do not think this is an option, it is a requirement
2) I gave you the example of NATO countries declining permission to the US. Spain, Portugal, Italy are but a few example that declined in the past 10-15 years. ALL have some form of a "LSA" with the US, Italy has US warfighters on their soil to boot and yet they were able to decline. And, you have no comment - not a word - on that?
3) The deal with China/Hong Kong is actually 10 times worse than a "LSA". The US passed a law before China got control over Hong Kong (US Hong Kong Policy Act (of 1991?)) that actually sees Hong Kong in a totally different light - but, the US has not acted to follow that law. However, port visits of US naval assets predates China taking over Hong Kong and such visits are a continuation of that.
I just checked, China has declined ports visits twice before. First when Bush accorded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Medal of Honor (2007?) and again when the US "violated" the no-fly-zone (called something else) that China set up in the East China Sea (in 2009?). The recent decline is related to the SCS.
It is easier to decline when there is no agreement than when there is one even if there are clauses in the agreement that could be quoted for doing so.
Up to each nation. Nothing "easier" either way. Just say no. Spain/Portugal/Italy have done it.
General comments:
Seeing ghosts where there are none: "Forward positing of ammunition", Camel in the tent, "bases" - as a place to host US troops on Indian soil, "full diplomatic immunity", ...............................
Folks, this is your grand son's India. An India where, by 2050, the IMF/WB has predicted India to be 2nd in eco, with an ave income of $40,000 er year. Please invest time in grooming proper leaders for that era.
Let me end this post with:
Modi in WSJ wrote:
India traditionally has been a nonaligned country
reluctant to play a prominent role in global affairs . But over the past decade, it has formed ever-stronger links with the U.S. “
Today,
unlike before,
India is not standing in a corner,” Mr. Modi said.
There in lies the difference. Lost to most Indians (here?), who have no clue of how potent "India" is.
Enough analysis. Act.