India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[NRao]

Is there a ref for the Hawk incidence?

No CA relation that I am aware of. The best I can make out is that this talk started around 2010 (could be in 2009). It is part of a US version of string-of-pearls. My feel is that a base should be ready - on a need-basis only - in the Andamans. I doubt it will be on the main land. But, my feel is it will come. But, it will be dictated by what China does or does not do and old rules will not apply.

"This is just the start of the Air Force's plan to expand its presence in Asia, according to Carlisle. In addition to the Australian deployments, the Air Force will be sending jets to Changi East air base in Singapore, Korat air base in Thailand, Trivandrum in India, and possibly bases at Kubi Point and Puerto Princesa in the Philippines and airfields in Indonesia and Malaysia."

Dunno if this clever journo wording : the first sentence attributes the quote to Carlisle. The second implies that he said it re Trivandrum.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... surrounded

I think that is a horrible exaggeration. I think the following is the original quote:

In Australia, for example, the Air Force will dispatch “fighters, tankers, and at some point in the future, maybe bombers on a rotational basis,” said Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of U.S. Air Force operations in the Pacific, during a breakfast with reporters in Washington this week.

This is just the start of the Air Force’s plan to expand its presence in Asia, according to Carlisle. In addition to the Australian deployments, the Air Force will be sending jets to Changi East air base in Singapore, Korat air base in Thailand, a site in India, and possibly bases at Cubi Point and Puerto Princesa in the Philippines.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/08/02/2 ... rylink=cpy

(BTW, under the "Very good news" tab is that China seems to have signed on to a ton of natural resources in the countries west of them. I see that as a great deal for India.)

[NRao]

BTW, just as a FYI, Indian "Look East" policy predates the US "Pivot" policy by a few years, but have a few items in common. That before someone yells that India is following/helping/poodling/etc the US.

[vishvak]

Isn't it ironic to mention border control policy on J&K border and china specific moves on same day.

[Cosmo_R]

Is there a ref for the Hawk incidence?

Here's the actual transcript:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Document ... rlisle.pdf

Page 8:

General Carlisle:
....

The Air Force is turning to that in the Pacific. The Theater Security Plan, the PSP. Right
now we have 12 F22s in Kadena and 24 F16s on the Korean Peninsula, additionally, on
top of what was there before. So as I envision it, as I talk about expanded engagement,
is a lot of our rebalance is a rotational presence through the Pacific. And obviously we’ll
maintain our capability in Northeast Asia. In a lot of ways we’ll increasingly move south
and west with the rotational presence. Darwin, Tindal, [Pilbara], Changi East in
Singapore, CARAT in Thailand, Trivandrum in India.

[NRao]

I missed that completely!!!!!

Thanks.

I owe you a dinner.

[Philip]

Trivandrum? Last place in India for it to happen! The Commies who are in large strength in the state and will in all probability replace the scam hit Congress led govt. in Kerala cometh the next hustings,will never allow it to happen.It is the state in India that loves strikes,demos,bandhs,to the maximum.I think that the US is also overestimating its influence in India,despite the thaw in relations and good progress on some fronts..Miaow Mohan Singh is on the conveyor belt to wasteland.Uncle Sam's most fervent admirer is now a lame duck PM who needs to ask permission from the "high Command" even for his daily penance.It could become a huge election issue.There are better ways of skinning the dragon with India's help.

[NRao]

Is there a ref for the Hawk incidence?

Here's the actual transcript:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Document ... rlisle.pdf

A good deal of very interesting and imp info in there.

First of all I find that the interviewer comes out with a question about India right up front. I had mentioned this once some time back - "India" is getting on to the radar of many in the US.

Secondly, yes, your observation (if I read it properly) is right, "Hawk" has been a hawk WRT India. About 2-3 months ago I had mentioned him (mistook his position in PACOM), but saw him live once on CSPAN-3. He is very "India".

Trivandrum, eh? Do we notice an increase in traffic in the vicinity - we should about now. Not stationed ("not a base"). Coming and going. Rotational - very, very interesting. And, that too it is from PACOM. Would be hilarious to "see" a F-22 around there.

C-17 stuff. Talk of common "need" - here is a great example. There is plenty more to come - these are the only two nations that have a "need" out there.

IF some of this is true, then the next step is procurement. Then supply chain - why go around the world to get stuff - get it locally.

BTW, there is a huge push to try different things in diff countries and then those that work out share those successes with others. HUGE push. Watch for NGO across the globe. But core: US, Aussie and india.

Pakalam.

[anjan]

As I continue to hear, the US has clearly articulated what it wants from a SP: closer defense ties, coordination on climate change, closer India/US/AUS/Japan naval interoperability, counter-terrorism related information exchange and the like. The Indian side has demurred or been unable to deliver and at the same time not articulated what it wants from the US except for H1B visas and lifting of dual use technologies which are not really elements of a SP—they can be dealt with at a working level.

Yeah everyone in that Naval relationship is hedging their bets. And quite naturally too. If push comes to shove do you think the US will risk war for anyone else? My bet is like '62 they'll simply air drop greatcoats. Counter-terrorism? Yeah, we're all board with those maritime recce aircraft donations to help fight terror. All that pervasive spying in the name of terrorism is working well as well.

Technology is being discussed because that's what's most important to India. H1Bs are discussed because trade is important. You can't start trying to undercut your partner's economic growth, bring gigantic pressure to sabotage their healthcare(all that whining over generics) and pretend there is some "relationship" there. Interesting partnership this. What's important to me is important, what's important to you is not worthy of a "Strategic Partnership".

The problem IMHO, is that SPs are outward looking: against or for some worldview much like the ABCA. India OTOH, wants simply to be left alone and to focus inwardly.

Yes, it's shocking that India chooses to follow exactly the same course that the US itself charted when it was a growing power. When will we learn?

The US actually would like to have India as part of an ABCA but GoI is afraid of offending the Russians, Chinese, NAM (!) and the vote bank. The only thing That India has asked of the US is to manage its Pakistan policy which, of course, is a problem for GOTUS until it has managed to extricate itself from Afghanistan.

ABCA is/was/will remain a genetic club. It's a WASP club fundamentally. It excludes Western Europe, Japan etc. Clearly it's a shared ancestry thing. So unless we all turn white, change religion and pine after the queen and the Hwhite, hwhite cliffs of dover I'm guessing it's not happening.

But those who think that the US cannot hinder India if it chose to, make a dangerous bet. As Jim Croce sang: "You don't tug on Superman's cape, You don't spit into the wind, You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger And you don't mess around with [unkil]"

Badder than old King Kong too, I bet

[Christopher Sidor]

India needs access to Guam. By the end of this decade we will have some 3-4 SSBNs patrolling the South-China Sea or the Western Pacific. If we had access to bases in Guam, Vietnam and Japan it would make the task of IN and eventually IAF much easier. So the base in Peninsular India should be seen as quid-pro-quid.

The problem with the base in India is that US will use that base for its activity in the Persian Gulf. That is something which will not be in sync with India's interest. This is a dichotomy which India has to grapple with as far as US is concerned. East of Delhi, our and US aims coincide, to a remarkable Degree. West of Delhi they do not and in some cases are in direct opposition.

It would have been better if Andaman island was offered to USN. But US will probably not accept Andaman. It has many other ports namely Singapore, Ports in Australia and NZ, Okinawa and Guam which are closer, more safer and fairly more capable for its operations in Pacific.

[Cosmo_R]

@Anjan: ^^^ Will the US risk a war for anyone else? They will if they have a security arrangement: Japan, SOKO etc.

The Pakis will say the US won't honor security arrangements 1965/71 but they started the wars.

If the Chinese attack India like in 1962, without a security pact, all we can hope for is airdrops of M-777 howitzers that should have been in place long before.

On the SP thing, I think you may have missed my point. I am saying that all this talk of an SP is merely that. The power imbalance and difference in priorities is too great for any SP to be effective--it's a talkathon and even that runs into obstacles e.g. AKA's refusal to hold joint talks (with the MEA) with the US--he wanted separate talks.

Where there is convergence is 1. The PRC threat, 2. Managing the disintegration of Pakistan and 3. Reducing Indian dependence on imported oil.

The first requires India to get its act together on modernizing the military. It's been 13 years since the IAF touted buying the M2Ks from France and we still don't have an agreement. No 155MM field artillery since Bofors, the sub fleet is depleting etc.

The second is waiting out the end game in Afghanistan. Once the US withdrawal is complete, I think the focus will shift to denuking TSP. It's not out of concern for India, rather that the stuff will wind up elsewhere.

The third requires a coherent energy policy. There isn't one. ONGC et al don't have the capability or the resources to do deep drilling or shale. A cursory look at the economics offered to investors tells you no way anyone's going to bite.

Finally, I wish we'd get as exercised about what PRC is doing to clean our clock as we seem to get about the US. Whatever the US does, it's mostly about money (e.g. the drug lobbies) and it's rational if not realistic. The PRC wants to eat us and its not just money. It's irrational.

[Cosmo_R]

..

The problem with the base in India is that US will use that base for its activity in the Persian Gulf. That is something which will not be in sync with India's interest.

They don't need a base in India for the Persian Gulf. They have Qatar. Also, India comes under PACOM, the PG is under CENTCOM.

I was about to speculate to NRao that the 'base' in India is likely to revolve around 'shared logistics' a sort of India-specific LSA/interoperability stuff. Not that this will happen but I believe (highly speculative) one of the initiatives AC was considering was offering to lease SHs to the IAF with a full service supply chain/logistics managed by Boeing on the ground in India that would also serve the USN.

I think NRao would agree that in the unlikely event it came to pass, it would be a boon in terms of the real ToT: logistcs/supply chain management. Nobody does better than unkil.

[Pratyush]

India has no reason to offer any base to the US. It gets us nothing. It is not going to help us against any one. At the same time it will mark us as a US stooge.

Also, it is in the interests of the US for India and PRC to fight. As it will distract the PRC from competing with the US directly.

[anjan]

@Anjan: ^^^ Will the US risk a war for anyone else? They will if they have a security arrangement: Japan, SOKO etc.

I entirely doubt it. The US population is war weary, They don't want to get into an air war in Syria with their international credibility fully on the line, you think they'll get into a shooting match with a near peer competitor? One that''ll see a drain of treasury, body bags, and empty walmart shelves? This isn't the population of WW2 or before. This lot won't deprive themselves of iPods to go defend some random population on the other end of the globe, treaty or no treaty. Most of East Asia, including Japan is rearming with exactly that in mind. They could probably get people behind defending Australia, anglo-saxon and all I suppose. The rest of us are on their own.

Finally, I wish we'd get as exercised about what PRC is doing to clean our clock as we seem to get about the US. Whatever the US does, it's mostly about money (e.g. the drug lobbies) and it's rational if not realistic. The PRC wants to eat us and its not just money. It's irrational.

The PRC is fully a rational actor. Notice that they never intervene in an Indo-Pak war. They'll happily fight us to the last Paki. If anything that's a far more rational aim then the half mad actions of a Kissinger or a Nixon. And everyone is fully aware of the Chinese threat. The key difference is that they don't go about pretending to be friendly. They staple visas and, jump over fences, and write bombastic editorials and in general do everything possible to be crystal clear about their intentions, appearing almost comically villainous in doing so. No real pretense there.

Pakistani terrorism is conducted under the umbrella of the Pakistani arms, conventional and nuclear, both provided or facilitated by the US. The group of countries we fall into in terms of surveillance is another indicator of just how they truly see us. This while they pretend friendship.They offer sanctimonious advice and shove their oars in where they're not needed. Then of course there is the "look yea heathens, look on mighty Uncle and despair. Be glad for his magnanimity" kind of rhetoric from the friends of the US. This, after all the shit they've pulled. The message I see is "Hey, we're the ******** arming your enemies but we could do much much worse. So... Best buds then?" And you wonder why people get riled up.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not advocating that we break off all relations. Quite the contrary. I think MMS should go tell them how amazingly awesome they are and how grateful we are that they haven't bombed us yet. I see no problems with stealing their playbook. Any delusions of alliance though will end up with our country in ruins.

[Philip]

Senior US Navy officer, NCIS agent arrested in bribery scheme
Published October 20, 2013
FoxNews.com

Two high-ranking U.S. Navy officers are under arrest -- along with the head of a Singapore-based defense contractor -- in what some are calling the worst scandal to hit that branch of the armed forces in years.

According to The San Diego Union Tribune, federal prosecutors are accusing Navy Cmdr. Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz, 46, of tipping off Leonard Glenn Francis, CEO of Glenn Defense Marine Asia Ltd., to the worldwide movement of Navy ships so his company could obtain contracts to service those vessels at port.

Also reportedly arrested was Naval Criminal Investigative Service supervisory Special Agent John Beliveau, 44, who allegedly (and secretly) downloaded reports on his agency’s investigation into Glenn Defense Marine Asia -- and how it won a $125 million contract to service naval ships at ports of call.

According to The Washington Post, a third official – a former Navy ship captain – was relieved of his command as part of the ongoing probe into Glenn Defense Marine Asia and its contacts within the Navy.

The accusation is “extremely serious, disconcerting and surprising.”

- Adm. Gary Roughead

The Post writes that in return for the ill-gotten information, Glenn Defense Marine plied the officers with prostitutes, cash, luxury hotel rooms, plane tickets, and even tickets to a Lady Gaga concert in Thailand.

“Allegations of bribery and kickbacks involving naval officers, contracting personnel and NCIS agents are unheard of,” retired Adm. Gary Roughead told The Post, describing the accusation as “extremely serious, disconcerting and surprising.”

The Post cites court filings in reporting Glenn Defense Marine has serviced Navy ships at Pacific ports of calls for more than a quarter-century.

The paper also writes that authorities now accuse the company of over-billing the Navy for at least part of that period for, “everything from tugboats to fuel to sewage disposal.”

CEO Francis was reportedly arrested last month at a San Diego harborside hotel during a sting operation that coaxed the 58-year-old Malaysian national to the U.S. under the premise of a bogus meeting with Navy officials.

On Sunday, a senior Navy spokesman deflected inquires into the status of the still-unfolding investigation.

"We don't comment on ongoing investigations, except to say that we are committed to supporting the investigation,” the spokesman told Fox News. “We hold our leaders to -- and expect them to uphold -- high standards of conduct and professionalism."

[TSJones]

Report of attempted suicide as crew detained by India grow desperate:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/10/21 ... seized-by/

They arrested and jailed 33 of the crew members, which included Indian, British and Estonian nationals, and then came back two days later to apprehend the ship's engineer and captain -- both Ukrainian nationals.

The chief engineer, whom Watson declined to name, attempted suicide as the Indian authorities forced him from the vessel, according to multiple sources. Capt. Dudnik Valentyn, who had spent nearly a year as a captive of Somali pirates in 2011, was also taken and thrown into an Indian jail.

[Christopher Sidor]

..

The problem with the base in India is that US will use that base for its activity in the Persian Gulf. That is something which will not be in sync with India's interest.

They don't need a base in India for the Persian Gulf. They have Qatar. Also, India comes under PACOM, the PG is under CENTCOM.

The problem with a base in Qatar is that US is never sure whether it is operating in a hostile or friendly territory. Moreover the base in Qatar is vulnerable to short range missiles fired from across the Persian Gulf by the Persians. With a base in Peninsular India US has sheltered base behind the might of Indian Armed forces, the most potent force in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Moreover flights from Peninsular India targeted towards PRC does not make sense. In case of PLA Civilian Shipping or PLAAN, Diego Gracia is more than enough.

I was about to speculate to NRao that the 'base' in India is likely to revolve around 'shared logistics' a sort of India-specific LSA/interoperability stuff. Not that this will happen but I believe (highly speculative) one of the initiatives AC was considering was offering to lease SHs to the IAF with a full service supply chain/logistics managed by Boeing on the ground in India that would also serve the USN.

I think NRao would agree that in the unlikely event it came to pass, it would be a boon in terms of the real ToT: logistcs/supply chain management. Nobody does better than unkil.

I still do not see the utility of a base in case of Logistics. If USN and USAF need a storage place they need not have a base. GoI/IN/IAF will very happily given the storage space. Moreover due to economic constraints IAF/IN will be very wary of handing over any of their assets. The reasoning will always remain, what if we need it when we US also needs it. For example if Indo-PRC cold war turns warm or hot and simultaneously there is serious disturbance in the Persian Gulf.

[NRao]

Trivandrum is NOT a "base" (Hawk calls it a "place"). However, forget what it is called - (as we post) it really does not matter. What does matter is that units (they propose) will be "rotated" around these various "place"s. The stay will be very short (how short I have no idea). (The question I have in mind is are units from other nations going to be rotated too? Or is it just US units?) (They are meant to establish "relationships"!!!!)

They for sure are building out to check china, but at the same time they do not want to escalate it beyond what they absolutely need to. My feel is that China will not back down and then these nations will escalate it to the next step.

On logistics, I do not think India has signed the Logistic Support Agreement (LSA) (commies held it back in 2008 - do not know what progress has been made since then). IF that has been signed (which I doubt) then there should be no issues, assets from both nations can freely stop and load up at each others facilities world-wide. (OK, found Jan, 2013 :: Logistics Support Agreement, A Closer Look at the Impact on India-US Strategic Relationship - I have not read it yet).

Outside of some movement in this direction, I would not read too much into this Trivandrum thing. From a PACOM perspective it is rather big - it looks like that is as far West as they have been able to come. Anything beyond spills into the next Command.

There is certainly a much bigger picture out there - common procurement and supply chain. My feel is it is coming. Like I have been saying, the services have a lot in common and they could save a ton if they can implement what they have talked about. Technologies is the natural and sexy focus, but just the tip of the iceberg. IF and when these two get the ball rolling it is only natural that the others will be forced to join the party - just plain economics.

Finally, this push (as I have stated months ago) is from PACOM - that needs to be kept in mind. PACOM and Indian "Look East" are a natural fit for a variety of reasons. It really could not have been scripted any better - it just worked out this way.

[Cosmo_R]

@Anjan ^^^: Sorry, I should not have responded to your post. We clearly see things very differently.

[Cosmo_R]

Christopher Sidor. Bear in mind we are debating hypotheticals. Qatar is vulnerable to missiles from Iran. However, as Iranian capabilities expand, they could lob a few longer range ones to India as well.

I was not speculating in terms of a base as much as a logistical that served both the US/India centered around the lease of SHs (and an alternative to the LSA that that India rejected), as AC might have conceived it.

The principle idea I was trying get across is that of supply chain management and logistics—real ToT not screwdriver stuff that HAL et al indulge in.

Anyway, let's drop this. It's wasting BF bandwidth.Any mention of cooperating with unkil seems to engender fulminating rage (not you).

Not worth it.

MMS has proposed a industrial zone for PRC in India to 'balance trade'. Let's discuss that in the PRC thread. It should be far less controversial.

[NRao]

(and an alternative to the LSA that that India rejected),

For removing such barriers and enabling practical cooperation, the
US first proposed a Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the India-specific
version of the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA), at the
sixth meeting of the India-US Defence Policy Group (DPG) in June 2004

The ACSA is the generic US agreement, the LSA is India specific.

As of Jan, 2013:

But India has been citing domestic political
compulsions and stating that the agreement needs closer scrutiny and
assessment from the viewpoint of the benefits that India would accrue by
signing it. It {LSA} is now pending before the Cabinet Committee on Security
(CCS) for clearance at the time of going to press.

and, Sept, 2013:

Asked if the US was ignoring the frameworks of fundamental defence agreements such as Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA), Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) for doing business with India, Carter said, "We are not ignoring them but we are working around so that they do not become obstacles.”Obviously, we would like these to be concluded but we needed to get on with the work. We are trying to succeed in doing practical things together even though India has not shown keenness to sign these agreements," he said.

[ramana]

Philip, What relevance was this above post to this thread?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1530066

Its local corruption in the US.

[Nandu]

TSJones, those are not "dubious charges". They asked to be let into port, was denied permission, berthed anyway and tried to buy fuel illegally.

Ramana, the company is based in Singapore. Doesn't that make it an international corruption case?

[Philip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... mes-drones

US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International
Joint report with Human Rights Watch judges US attacks in Yemen and Pakistan to have broken international human rights law

Jon Boone in Islamabad
The Guardian, Tuesday 22 October 2013 )

Pakistan house destroyed by drone missile
A house in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan destroyed by a drone missile in 2008. Eighteen people including Islamist militants were killed. Photograph: Reuters

US officials responsible for the secret CIA drone campaign against suspected terrorists in Pakistan may have committed war crimes and should stand trial, a report by a leading human rights group warns. Amnesty International has highlighted the case of a grandmother who was killed while she was picking vegetables and other incidents which could have broken international laws designed to protect civilians.

The report is issued in conjunction with an investigation by Human Rights Watch detailing missile attacks in Yemen which the group believes could contravene the laws of armed conflict, international human rights law and Barack Obama's own guidelines on drones.

The reports are being published while Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's prime minister, is in Washington. Sharif has promised to tell Obama that the drone strikes – which have caused outrage in Pakistan – must end.

Getting to the bottom of individual strikes is exceptionally difficult in the restive areas bordering Afghanistan, where thousands of militants have settled. People are often terrified of speaking out, fearing retribution from both militants and the state, which is widely suspected of colluding with the CIA-led campaign.

There is also a risk of militants attempting to skew outside research by forcing interviewees into "providing false or inaccurate information", the report said.

But Amnesty mounted a major effort to investigate nine of the many attacks to have struck the region over the last 18 months, including one that killed 18 labourers in North Waziristan as they waited to eat dinner in an area of heavy Taliban influence in July 2012. All those interviewed by Amnesty strongly denied any of the men had been involved in militancy. Even if they were members of a banned group, that would not be enough to justify killing them, the report said.

"Amnesty International has serious concerns that this attack violated the prohibition of the arbitrary deprivation of life and may constitute war crimes or extrajudicial executions," the report said. It called for those responsible to stand trial.

The US has repeatedly claimed very few civilians have been killed by drones. It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all applicable domestic and international law".

The Amnesty report supports media accounts from October last year that a 68-year-old woman called Mamana Bibi was killed by a missile fired from a drone while she was picking okra outside her home in North Waziristan with her grandchildren nearby. A second strike minutes later injured family members tending her.

If true, the case is striking failure of a technology much vaunted for its accuracy. It is claimed the remote-controlled planes are able to observe their targets for hours or even days to verify them, and that the explosive force of the missiles is designed to limit collateral damage. As with other controversial drone strikes, the US has refused to acknowledge or explain what happened.

Amnesty said it accepts some US drone strikes may not violate the law, "but it is impossible to reach any firm assessment without a full disclosure of the facts surrounding individual attacks and their legal basis. The USA appears to be exploiting the lawless and remote nature of the region to evade accountability for its violations," it said.

In Yemen, another country where US drones are active, Human Rights Watch highlighted six incidents, two of which were a "clear violation of international humanitarian law". The remaining four may have broken the laws of armed conflict because the targets were illegitimate or because not enough was done to minimise civilian harm, the report said.

It also argued that some of the Yemen attacks breach the guidelines announced by Obama earlier this year in his first major speech on a programme that is officially top secret. For example, the pledge to kill suspects only when it is impossible to capture them appears to have been ignored on 17 April this year when an al-Qaida leader was blown up in a township in Dhamar province in central Yemen, Human Rights Watch said.

An attack on a truck driving 12 miles south of the capital Sana'a reportedly killed two al-Qaida suspects but also two civilians who had been hired by the other men. That means the attack could have been illegal because it "may have caused disproportionate harm to civilians".

The legal arguments over drones are extremely complex, with much controversy focusing on whether or not the places where they are used amount to war zones.

Amnesty said some of the strikes in Pakistan might be covered by that claim, but rejected a "global war doctrine" that allows the US to attack al-Qaida anywhere in the world.

"To accept such a policy would be to endorse state practices that fundamentally undermine crucial human rights protections that have been painstakingly developed over more than a century of international law-making," the report said.

PS:Reg.Advanfort,If the activities of the co. are above board,what prevented it in the aftermath of 26/11 from liasing with the Indian authorities earlier ,that its ships would be conducting anti-piracy ops in the vicinity of Indian waters,carrying arms,etc.? From reports,the inability or unwillingness of the ship's crew to explain their movements along the Indian coastline for about a month,and how they offloaded their arms before entering Cochin,collecting them again,indicates "agents" operating either from India or abroad.In both cases the same tactic could be used to engineer another 26/11.WE are now told that the ship's captain is "faking" his suicide attempts,poss, trying to forestall intensive "interrogation"!

[Philip]

The most intimate "club" of nations,the "5 eyes" WASP wonders! They often rope in "assoc. members","temp.members",etc. who have no full membership but are used when needed.Full membership is strictly limited to the "P-5" of the 5-Eyes."The 5 Musketeers".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ou/277190/

Is 'The Five Eyes Alliance' Conspiring to Spy on You?
The dire threat of surveillance agencies working together to keep an eye on one another's citizens

Did you know that the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand participate together in an electronic eavesdropping cooperative called "The Five Eyes Alliance"? Or that Britain "has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world's phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency"? That's big news, right!

It's also four days old. Maybe some of you caught it, but you know what: The surveillance news is coming so fast these days that it's nearly impossible to process it all. One day, the scandal is that big Internet companies secretly share data with the U.S. government. A few more days pass, and then this drops:

One key innovation has been GCHQ's ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months. GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects. This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user's access to websites - all of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to limit interception to a specified range of targets.

And this:

By May last year 300 analysts from GCHQ, and 250 from the NSA, had been assigned to sift through the flood of data. The Americans were given guidelines for its use, but were told in legal briefings by GCHQ lawyers: "We have a light oversight regime compared with the US". When it came to judging the necessity and proportionality of what they were allowed to look for, would-be American users were told it was "your call".

What this portends is terrifying.

Say you're the NSA. By law, there are certain sorts of spying you're not lawfully allowed to do on Americans. (And agency rules constraining you too.) But wait. Allied countries have different laws and surveillance rules. If there are times when America's spy agency has an easier time spying on Brits, and times when Britain's spying agency has an easier time spying on Americans, it's easy to see where the incentives lead. Put bluntly, intelligence agencies have an incentive to make themselves complicit in foreign governments spying on their own citizens.

Reuters raised this concern:

NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel rejected any suggestion the U.S. agency used the British to do things the NSA cannot do legally. Under U.S. law, the NSA must get authorization from a secret federal court to collect information either in bulk or on specific people. "Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself," Emmel said.

What about when foreign partners aren't "asked," per se, to collect information the NSA isn't allowed to gather ... but just happen to have it because, you know, they collect basically everything?

The NSA has been misleading Americans at every opportunity lately, so I'm loath to take their word for anything, but even if this sort of cooperation isn't happening now -- which I would not assume -- it seems like it's inevitably going to happen if Congress doesn't preempt it, right? The alarming scenarios could fill a whole series of international thrillers. If all this had existed back in the aughts, would George W. Bush's NSA have been tempted to share surveillance with Tony Blair on his political opponents, to keep an Iraq War ally in power? How many of Senator Ron Wyden's private communications can the British government access? Do we ever have to worry about the Anglosphere's executives and spy agencies allying with one another against their respective legislatures? So much to ponder. (Oh, for an update of Mother Earth, Mother Board.)

Meanwhile, a suggested question for the White House press corps: "President Obama, how often do foreign governments let the U.S. government access information collected from U.S. citizens who aren't suspected of any crime?"

Third parties
This diagram depicts the relationship between the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the so-called "second parties", which comprises the UKUSA community, and the "third parties" made up of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other Western allies:
NSA and second parties—Extensive mutual sharing of signals intelligence[19]
NSA and third parties—Signals intelligence is funelled to the NSA in exchange for surveillance technology and cash[19]

The "Five Eyes" community is part of a huge alliance of Western democracies sharing signals intelligence with each other. These allied countries include NATO members (such as Sweden) and other U.S. allies (most notably Singapore and South Korea).[3]

As early as the 1950s, several Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden joined the community. They were soon followed by Denmark (1954) and West Germany (1955).[7] These countries became "third parties" participants in the UKUSA network.[20]

According to Edward Snowden, the NSA has a "massive body" called the Foreign Affairs Directorate that is responsible for partnering with other Western allies such as Israel.[21]

However, being a partner of the NSA did not automatically exempt a country from being targeted by the NSA. According to an internal NSA document leaked by Snowden, "We (the NSA) can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners."[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

[arun]

Report of attempted suicide as crew detained by India grow desperate:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/10/21 ... seized-by/

They arrested and jailed 33 of the crew members, which included Indian, British and Estonian nationals, and then came back two days later to apprehend the ship's engineer and captain -- both Ukrainian nationals.

The chief engineer, whom Watson declined to name, attempted suicide as the Indian authorities forced him from the vessel, according to multiple sources. Capt. Dudnik Valentyn, who had spent nearly a year as a captive of Somali pirates in 2011, was also taken and thrown into an Indian jail.

Hat-tip to Philip Fowler for the below linked article.

Advanfort which is owned by US-based Arab billionaire Samir Farajallah who is reported as having "open access to Pentagon" has had “a brush with the law” in the past. It thus behoves the Government of India to thoroughly investigate how the ship laden with arms came to land up in Indian waters, that too on the Bay of Bengal side rather than the Indian Ocean side which makes sense if they were protecting ships from Somali piracy.

Advanforts’s gambit of playing victim needs to be taken with a bucket of salt:

Not first brush with law for ship owner

[TSJones]

Report of attempted suicide as crew detained by India grow desperate:


Hat-tip to Philip Fowler for the below linked article.

Advanfort which is owned by US-based Arab billionaire Samir Farajallah who is reported as having "open access to Pentagon" has had “a brush with the law” in the past. It thus behoves the Government of India to thoroughly investigate how the ship laden with arms came to land up in Indian waters, that too on the Bay of Bengal side rather than the Indian Ocean side which makes sense if they were protecting ships from Somali piracy.

Advanforts’s gambit of playing victim needs to be taken with a bucket of salt:

Not first brush with law for ship owner

What brush with the law? Guilt by innuendo and unsubstantiated assertions? Yes, a very big bucket of salt. No more from me on this topic.

[arun]

Earlier article in The Hindu on Advanforts brushes with the law. Reiterates past legal difficulties in the US as reported by the New Indian Express and advises impounding of vessels by Eritrea :

Armed ship had brush with law in the past too

[Rony]

Did not a un trained and trigger happy US navy ship personnel killed Indian fisherman near Qatar during the "anti-piracy operations" in the past and when the Indians asked for a trail, the culprits were whisked away ? Bloody Criminals

[NRao]

Worth a read:

Jan, 2013 :: Logistics Support Agreement :: A Closer Look at the Impact on India-US Strategic Relationship

[Philip]

Now Frau (Mama) Merkel finds out that Uncle Sam had tapped her phone for years! See how the US spies on its closest allies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/
Merkel demands explanation from Obama after reports appear to show that US had tapped her mobile for years

Tony Paterson , David Usborne , Charlotte McDonald-Gibson
Berlin, New York, Brussels
Wednesday 23 October 2013

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called US President Barack Obama to demand an explanation after secret service reports appeared to show that US intelligence agencies had tapped her mobile phone for years.

“The Chancellor made it clear that should the indications prove true, she unequivocally disapproves and considers them totally unacceptable,” Ms Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters. “This would be a serious breach of trust. Such practices must be halted immediately,” he added.

Confirming that the highly unusual call had taken place, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said that Mr Obama had reassured Ms Merkel she is under no such surveillance.

“The United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor”, he said. Mr Carney did not say whether monitoring of Ms Merkel's phone might have occurred in the past.

That a German chancellor should even make such an inquiry of an American president is remarkable and serves to illustrate how far trust has broken down between the US and even its allies on how far Washington has gone in breaking the norms of privacy to keep tabs not just on its foes but its friends too.

The European Parliament today voted to suspend a data sharing agreement with the United States aimed at detecting terrorist fund-raising, the latest salvo as the EU scrambles to find an appropriate response to the hacking allegations against America's National Security Agency (NSA).

The resolution would need the backing of member states to take effect, but it highlights grave concerns in Brussels over claims that the US security agency tapped communications both of European Union institutions and member states including France and Belgium.

The issue is likely to be discussed when EU heads of state gather today (THURS) for a summit, with France the latest country reeling from claims in Le Monde that the NSA could have spied on more than 70 million phone records, text messages and private conversations.

Der Spiegel magazine's website disclosed that it had made enquiries with Germany's intelligence services which had raised the possibility that Ms Merkel's phone had been subjected to surveillance by the NSA.

The magazine said the German government considered the reports “sufficiently plausible” to warrant an immediate phone call from the Chancellor to President Obama in person.

Mr Seibert said Ms Merkel had made it clear to Mr Obama that she expected an explanation for the “entire scope” of NSA phone surveillance in Germany, which would provide answers to questions Berlin put to the US administration several months ago.

“As a close ally of the United States of America, the German government expects for the future, a clear basis which defines the activities of the intelligence services,” Mr Seibert added.

In June this year information supplied by Edward Snowden, the whistle blower and former contractor who worked with the NSA now in hiding in Russia, claimed NSA's German phone and internet surveillance operation was the biggest in the European Union. On 7 January, it was reported to have tapped into some 60 million German phone calls in a single day.

The reports prompted the German government to demand a full explanation from the United States which Berlin insists it is still waiting for.

Mexico this week lodged a complaint that the emails of its former president, Felipe Calderon, had been hacked by the Agency. The leader of Brazil, Dilma Rouseff, cancelled a state visit to the US in protest at the snooping allegations.

In most instances, the US has not been able to give a straight answer to the complaints, beyond making the case that every nation has extensive espionage operations in the interests of protecting national security.

It wasn't clear whether Mr Obama was blindsided by Ms Merkel's call.

Answering questions during an overseas trip earlier in the summer about allegations of US spying on the European Union's offices in Washington, Mr Obama was forced to rehearse the business-as-usual argument.

“Every intelligence service - not just ours, but every European intelligence service, every Asian intelligence service, wherever there's an intelligence service - here's one thing that they're going to be doing: They're going to be trying to understand the world better, and what's going on in world capitals around the world,” he said during a visit to Africa. “If that weren't the case, then there'd be no use for an intelligence service.”

[anjan]

@Anjan ^^^: Sorry, I should not have responded to your post. We clearly see things very differently.

That's quite okay although personally I don't like forums to be echo chambers. To each his own.

I suspect that to some extent Americans and Indian-Americans can't reconcile the United States as a country and how it treats it's own people - a prosperous, accepting, relatively free country engendering great loyalty - to how it acts in it's foreign relations. They retreat to the comfort of flag waving while completely ignoring the history of US allies and the repeated intrusions into their governance that such alliance brings.

[Philip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... ders-calls

NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts

• Agency given more than 200 numbers by government official
• NSA encourages departments to share their 'Rolodexes'
• Surveillance produced 'little intelligence', memo acknowledges

[Prem]

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/24/asi ... n-america/
Asian Immigration Outpacing Immigration from Latin America

This trend could be a reflection of a larger problem—a lack of high-skilled labor in the U.S. Many U.S. technology firms are saying that they are unable to fill positions that require a high degree of technical knowledge, leading many companies to scout abroad. Since Asian immigrants tend to pursue high-level degrees—for example, 56 percent of engineering degrees are earned in Asia—companies continue to recruit their Asian counterparts.Over the past two years, India has received over half of the petitions for H-1B, or high-skilled, visas. And of the top 10 H-1B recipient countries, six are from Asia.There are not enough high-skilled visas to accommodate U.S. companies’ demand for labor. The H-1B visa cap filled in just five days in 2013, at which point U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had to resort to a lottery system to randomly select recipients of the mere 65,000 visas.While the latest version of comprehensive immigration reform does raise the quota on H-1B visas from 65,000 to 180,000 annually, it creates a variety of restrictions that make it more difficult for businesses to acquire high-skilled workers. Many of the provisions will make hiring H-1B workers more expensive by requiring fees and instituting a variety of increased wage requirements. These requirements reduce the incentive to hire foreign-born workers and increase the cost of doing business for companies that rely on foreign labor.This is why Heritage supports an alternative plan that would increase the H-1B visa cap, make the visa process easier to navigate, strengthen the Visa Waiver Program, and implement an effective temporary worker program. Rather than making it more difficult for U.S. companies to acquire labor, Heritage supports adequate legal routes for immigrants seeking employment in the U.S.In recognition of the benefits of legal immigration, a Heritage task force on immigration and border security concluded earlier this year:Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers and making non-immigrant visa processing responsive to the needs of the economy would allow American business to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers.Without adequate reforms, the U.S. immigration system will fail to do what is best for American companies and our friends in Asia.

[ramana]

Some wise guys are saying Ombaba should not have cracked down on outsourcing as his Healthcare website looks like it didnt have such inputs!

[Vayutuvan]

President Obama decalred open season on outsourcing - especially to India - in the starting sentence of one of his State of the Union TV addresses. No wonder several people in that line of work are facing underhand comments from jerks who are flying under the shadow of the President. Several Indian "exporting to US" businesses are adversely affected after that statement in that their employees unable to get short term business visas in a timely fashion.

[NRao]

Some wise guys are saying Ombaba should not have cracked down on outsourcing as his Healthcare website looks like it didnt have such inputs!

Just a very badly managed project - all around.

This was not a complicated project.

[Vayutuvan]

JEM thanks.

[JE Menon]

Wtf dude... Pls be careful

[anmol]

cross posting from Narendra Modi vs Dynasty thread:-

Modi cannot lead India effectively: NYT editorial board
by Newest, timesofindia.indiatimes.com
October 27th 2013
NEW YORK: Narendra Modi, BJP's prime ministerial candidate, cannot hope to lead India effectively if he inspires "fear" and "antipathy" among many of its people, New York Times has commented in an unusual move.

"Mr Modi has shown no ability to work with opposition parties or tolerate dissent," the editorial board of New York Times said in a stinging editorial on the 63-year-old BJP leader.

The editorial said that Modi has already "alienated" BJP's political partners when Janata Dal (United), an important regional party broke off its 17-year alliance with the "party because it found Mr Modi unacceptable."

India was a country with multiple religions and "Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people," it said while recalling that nearly 1,000 people died in the 2002 riots in Gujarat.

The editorial, published yesterday, also questioned Modi's economic track record in Gujarat.

The "economic record in Gujarat is not entirely admirable, either," it said.

"Muslims in Gujarat, for instance, are much more likely to be poor than Muslims in India as a whole, even though the state has a lower poverty rate than the country," the editorial said.

"His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities," said the 19-member editorial board, headed by India-born Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of New York Times.

Narendra Modi’s Rise in India
by THE EDITORIAL BOARD, nytimes.com
October 26th 2013

In 2002, rioters in the western Indian state of Gujarat savagely killed nearly 1,000 people, most of whom were part of the Muslim minority. Now, barely a decade later, Narendra Modi, who was the chief minister of Gujarat at the time and still holds the office, is a leading candidate to become prime minister of India.

Mr. Modi, a star of India’s main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, would become prime minister if the party won enough seats in parliamentary elections next summer with support from its political allies. His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country’s 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities. They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.

Supporters of Mr. Modi argue that an investigation commissioned by India’s Supreme Court cleared him of wrongdoing in the riots. And they insist that Mr. Modi, who is widely admired by middle-class Indians for making Gujarat one of India’s fastest-growing states, can revive the economy, which has been weakened by a decade of mismanagement by the coalition government headed by the Indian National Congress Party.

There is no question that the Congress Party has failed to capitalize on the economic growth of recent years to invest in infrastructure, education and public institutions like the judiciary. And instead of trying to revive itself with new ideas and leaders, it is likely to be led in the coming election by Rahul Gandhi, the inexperienced scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

But Mr. Modi’s strident Hindu nationalism has fueled public outrage. When Reuters asked him earlier this year if he regretted the killings in 2002, he said, if “someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is.” That incendiary response created a political uproar and demands for an apology.

Mr. Modi has shown no ability to work with opposition parties or tolerate dissent. And he has already alienated political partners; this summer, an important regional party broke off its 17-year alliance with the B.J.P. because it found Mr. Modi unacceptable.

His economic record in Gujarat is not entirely admirable, either. Muslims in Gujarat, for instance, are much more likely to be poor than Muslims in India as a whole, even though the state has a lower poverty rate than the country.

India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr. Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.

[Singha]

I am yet to catch hold of a single faithful who will vote for or against based on what NYT says

dont get your BP up just because you may be outside india and exposed to this kind of materials...nobody here reads it or gives a rats a** if they do.