India-US relations: News and Discussions III

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 22 Oct 2016 02:37

Hey, I wrote that article!

http://kalchiron.blogspot.com/2012/01/u ... ctrum.html

It originally appeared on my blog, Atri ji reproduced it with my permission on his.

http://indospheric.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... ussel.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2016 02:39

1) Recent events in Syria have provided some insight into the disjointed efforts from the US. Kerry went one way (someone leaked his comments too), Carter another and perhaps Obama a third(?). Such disconnections will be cleaned up under HRC. I do not see too much deviation from what Obama did, but I expect more consistency and force behind the decisions. Will depend on who she retains, but from an Indian PoV, there should not be massive moves

2) The Philippine scenario. This dude has moved his orbit. IMHO, this gives India more say in matters in the Indo-Pacific region

3) Isolating. India did a good job of isolating Pakistan. But, in the process got isolated on the bigger stage. In short, as a player, India has a very, very long way to go. And, worse still, India *really* has no friends. India being viewed as a wealthy client, not one that can bring substance on the international scene that matters to the big players

WRT Indo-US, just as Pakistan is trying to play the Kashmir for A'stan, India needs to play Pakistan for China. I just do not see why India should treat the two as two different threats - they clearly are not and India should treat them as such. Act ~~East~~.

India needs to slow down her efforts on the international front: UN, G20, BRICS, etc. IF these guys are unwilling to help, so be it. No need to go knocking on their doors. That will work only if India concentrates on efforts internally.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Oct 2016 02:43

Aren't you trying a bit too hard to irritate me, Hiteshji?

Must be an Evangelist term - this business of "anointing" oneself to do anything. Shows sheer thoughtfulness. But then I don't know anyone who pours oil over themselves each time they make an Internet post, but then again I am not an Evangelist and don't vote Evangelist unlike you (based on what you posted about who you voted for, which is always a sign of great judgement). Yup.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Oct 2016 02:46

UlanBatori wrote:Must be an Evangelist term - this business of "anointing" oneself to do anything. Shows sheer thoughtfulness. But then I don't know anyone who pours oil over themselves each time they make an Internet post, but then again I am not an Evangelist and don't vote Evangelist.

Try again Sherlock Holmes. I am well aware of your sly ad hominem barbs. Frankly, every time you make a post that you think it is funny, it comes across, well, not just funny at all but kind of idiotic.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Oct 2016 02:52

That's because you have such a superlative intelligence, Hiteshji. I post for ordinary folks like me to read, no hope of impressing someone as awesome as you are.

Sherlock Holmes.

Oh! thanks! Another compliment from an obviously super-ejiikated Anglophile! Awesome! Was he anointed or something?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Oct 2016 03:05

UlanBatori wrote:That's because you have such a superlative intelligence, Hiteshji. I post for ordinary folks like me to read, no hope of impressing someone as awesome as you are.

Superlative?

Oh the irony of it all.

Oh! thanks! Another compliment from an obviously super-ejiikated Anglophile! Awesome! Was he anointed or something?

You calling me Anglophile?

I thought that given your fondness of pinglish and use of bombastic language and keeness of showing off your mastery of the English language, I'd thought you are a self-declared Anglophile.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Oct 2016 03:08

Glad that I finally seem to have written something that gave cause for mirth to a great soul. Honored!

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 22 Oct 2016 04:06

Mod Note

Hitesh, UlanBatori, please move on and don't address each other directly. About the sorriest sight there is, is that of two Indians getting into a very personal fight on the subject of the affairs of another country.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 22 Oct 2016 13:12

Edited wrong thread !
Moving post to Understand US...

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 22 Oct 2016 15:45

Also from wikileaks Hillary opposed Adani coal mine in Australia.

LokeshC · Post by **LokeshC** » 22 Oct 2016 16:33

NRao wrote:
3) Isolating. India did a good job of isolating Pakistan. But, in the process got isolated on the bigger stage. In short, as a player, India has a very, very long way to go. And, worse still, India *really* has no friends. India being viewed as a wealthy client, not one that can bring substance on the international scene that matters to the big players

WRT Indo-US, just as Pakistan is trying to play the Kashmir for A'stan, India needs to play Pakistan for China. I just do not see why India should treat the two as two different threats - they clearly are not and India should treat them as such. Act ~~East~~.

India needs to slow down her efforts on the international front: UN, G20, BRICS, etc. IF these guys are unwilling to help, so be it. No need to go knocking on their doors. That will work only if India concentrates on efforts internally.

If India has no friends, which I agree, and I believe that it will be the case even in the mid to far future, there is no need to worry about getting "more" isolated. We are already completely isolated on the big stage. India is too big to ignore, in a decade it will be too costly for anyone to ignore, and they would have to do so at their own risk.

Otherwise, why has massa invested her third largest spy network in India?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Oct 2016 18:30

^^^"Otherwise, why has massa invested her third largest spy network in India?
Because they can and it's what they do. Beats me what they are spying on.

panduranghari · Post by **panduranghari** » 22 Oct 2016 19:59

The USA cannot afford it. Get real. Hubris and all that.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 22 Oct 2016 21:14

^Pandurang ji there maybe truth in it, I mean LEMOA has been signed and not even protest from CPI and CPM. Maybe there control on us is tighter then we can see or feel right now.

Y I Patel · Post by **Y I Patel** » 22 Oct 2016 21:53

NRao wrote: 3) Isolating. India did a good job of isolating Pakistan. But, in the process got isolated on the bigger stage. In short, as a player, India has a very, very long way to go. And, worse still, India *really* has no friends. India being viewed as a wealthy client, not one that can bring substance on the international scene that matters to the big players

I would say that a much better characterization is that India is aloof, not isolated - a sure fire way to end this isolation would be to come down on one side or the other in the whole Syria-Iraq mess. Russia very likely wanted a statement of support from the recent BRICS summit, and the silence on condemning Pakistan is payback for India's lack of cooperation. US is probably much more comfortable with India's silence on the whole issue, although it too would welcome a more vocal stance in its favor. I think this is a very smart position for India; condemnation of Pakistan is not worth the price.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 22 Oct 2016 22:23

Manish_Sharma wrote:^Pandurang ji there maybe truth in it, I mean LEMOA has been signed and not even protest from CPI and CPM. Maybe there control on us is tighter then we can see or feel right now.

The LEMOA which has been signed is so benign that even the CPI/CPM do not care to protest.

The US is heavily invested in the old school politicos who have skimmed off the cream, lootyens types, poisonous journos and cancerous academics and last but not the least purchased baboo(n)s and ex service guys.

Amerki visas, green cards, invitations to junkets, jobs for the boys and family members, admission for the kids and NGO funding is how they work their magic.

Look at the numbers of ex diplomats, for example, who, post retirement, have high paid consultancy jobs in US think tanks and tenures at US universities and how they bad mouth India at the slightest opportunity.

sooraj · Post by **sooraj** » 22 Oct 2016 23:10

Donald Trump Supporters Heckle NDTV Reporter, Threaten To Knock Her Mic Down

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 22 Oct 2016 23:15

Intolerance everywhere onlee.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Oct 2016 23:49

I posted and commented on UnDy covering Trump here: viewtopic.php?p=2061406#p2061406

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 23 Oct 2016 00:13

not to defend that guy...but it could be very annoying to have mic being thrust on your face.

how he reacted can be an issue, but let's not kid that the lady was deliberately provoking. it was some shitty passive aggressive thing she did there.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 23 Oct 2016 00:59

I say its a bigger issue. WTF is an SDRE journalist from an Indian TV station doing at an all-white Trump rally? Whom is she trying to impress? I say she deserves the racist jab at her. At least she and her colonized ilk back in Delhi know what intolerance is all about, and will to appreciate and be proud of what they have and their heritage and strengths.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 23 Oct 2016 02:58

NDTV seems to have an USA news bureau. So it is probably OK for NDTV news reporter. However, a cynical reading of this incident could mean that NDTV is letting team billary know that they are 'friends' and would be happy to be of any help in india.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 23 Oct 2016 03:54

Ivanka Trump to celebrate Diwali with Indian Americans

WASHINGTON: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's daughter will celebrate the Diwali festival at a Hindu temple in the crucial swing state of Virginia with the members of the Indian-American community.
Ivanka Trump will celebrate Diwali with Indian-Americans during her visit to the Rajdhani Temple at Chantilly on Wednesday, campaign officials and community leaders said.
This is the first time a family member of one of the two top presidential candidates is visiting a Hindu temple.
Last week, Trump attended a charity event organised by Republican Hindu Council to raise funds for Kashmiri Pandits and Hindu victims of terrorism in Bangladesh. This was also the first time a presidential candidate attended an Indian- American event. It was attended by more than 5,000 people.
The visit of Ivanka, 34, a successful businesswoman and a key figure of the Trump campaign, to the Rajdhani Temple would "go a long way in breaking the stereotype," that the campaign "represents only angry white voters," said Rajesh Gooty, an Indian-American community leader in Virginia.

disha · Post by **disha** » 23 Oct 2016 05:07

sooraj wrote:Donald Trump Supporters Heckle NDTV Reporter, Threaten To Knock Her Mic Down

rNDTV #mediapimps do not understand that a no means NO. Having been schooled in the RapePal school of journalism., they think that it is their baki given privilege to thrust a mike anywhere.

In this case, the other person was very very very courteous. Asks her to take the mike out and pushes away the mike (and repeatedly without touching her any wee bit) and still the #mediapimp persists till the Police comes in. I think the police should have knee'd her and slammed her on to the road below. But that wish now remains as such.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 23 Oct 2016 05:19

VinodTK wrote:Ivanka Trump to celebrate Diwali with Indian Americans
WASHINGTON: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's daughter will celebrate the Diwali festival at a Hindu temple in the crucial swing state of Virginia with the members of the Indian-American community.
Ivanka Trump will celebrate Diwali with Indian-Americans during her visit to the Rajdhani Temple at Chantilly on Wednesday, campaign officials and community leaders said.
This is the first time a family member of one of the two top presidential candidates is visiting a Hindu temple.
Last week, Trump attended a charity event organised by Republican Hindu Council to raise funds for Kashmiri Pandits and Hindu victims of terrorism in Bangladesh. This was also the first time a presidential candidate attended an Indian- American event. It was attended by more than 5,000 people.
The visit of Ivanka, 34, a successful businesswoman and a key figure of the Trump campaign, to the Rajdhani Temple would "go a long way in breaking the stereotype," that the campaign "represents only angry white voters," said Rajesh Gooty, an Indian-American community leader in Virginia.

Another outreach to the Hindu community just a week before the voting day.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Oct 2016 05:20

chetak wrote:...
Look at the numbers of ex diplomats, for example, who, post retirement, have high paid consultancy jobs in US think tanks and tenures at US universities and how they bad mouth India at the slightest opportunity.

They were doing that while employed by GoI. The consultancies they've gotten are due to their left wing supporters in US academic circles. Just Google how the left has taken over academia in the US. I know this first hand—relatives' children expressing any view other than liberal left in college have been told bluntly that "it's not acceptable". What is "it"? -- Anything positive about NaMo or Hinduism. And many are Indian professors. Remember Wharton and how the 'Humanities' vetoed NaMo?

It's not just the incentives, look at MKB. You have to wonder whose side he's on.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 23 Oct 2016 05:24

UB and Hitesh. Utmost respect for both of youse. Let's go easy on the friendly fire. It only makes bakpakis happy and I don't wish them that.

JMT

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 23 Oct 2016 05:34

I have been through schools in US starting with middle school. And, it is total brainwashing. Depending upon whether you are in latino zone, white zone, or african american zone, question the opinions in textbooks with anything logical and you would be frowned upon. I still remember getting sent off to detention for talking in non greeko/roman languages while at the same time it was okay for latino students to talk in Spanish and mexican slangs. While in top tiered college and taking Indic classes, noticed that many undergrads pursuing this subject as their major were shying away from questioning opinions being peddled as fact just because they were afraid that they won't see graduate school or an advisor willing to accept them. Just question the Aryan Invasion Theory and see so called Indic experts squirm.

DavidD · Post by **DavidD** » 23 Oct 2016 11:47

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/ ... top-un-job

CHINA DID NOT STAND IN THIS INDIAN’S WAY FOR TOP U.N. JOB
As the United Nations elects a new secretary-general, Shashi Tharoor, who lost the race to Ban Ki-moon a decade ago, takes the lid off a controversial election

BY SHASHI THAROOR
22 OCT 2016
0 SHARE
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInShare on Google PlusShare on Sina
17Comments
Previous

Shashi Tharoor addresses the media as India’s nomination for UN Secretary-General after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor addresses the media as India’s nomination for UN Secretary-General after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006. Photo: AFP

Shashi Tharoor addresses the media as India’s nomination for UN Secretary-General after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor addresses the media as India’s nomination for UN Secretary-General after meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006. Photo: AFP
Next
EDITOR’S NOTE: As the United Nations elects a new secretary general, Shashi Tharoor takes the lid off a controversial election for the UN’s top job a decade ago – when he lost to Ban Ki-moon. Tharoor, who was the UN undersecretary general for communications and public information at the time, finished second to Ban, then South Korea’s foreign minister. A charismatic career diplomat and prolific writer, Tharoor’s defeat put an end to Indians’ dream of their first UN secretary general. In India, the result was quickly dubbed China’s handiwork, yet more proof of China’s machinations to hold down India. That perception has persisted to this day. Tharoor, who returned to India after the UN election, was elected a member of parliament and became a minister. He reveals in this special piece for This Week in Asia how China promised not to oppose him, and kept its word. One veto-wielding permanent Security Council member finally did sabotage Tharoor, but it wasn’t China.

Shashi Tharoor addresses journalists in New Delhi in 2006 – after becoming India’s nomination for UN Secretary General. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor addresses journalists in New Delhi in 2006 – after becoming India’s nomination for UN Secretary General. Photo: AFP

THE NEWS THAT the United Nations Security Council has elected its ninth secretary general, the former Portuguese prime minister Antonio Guterres, has put an end to the mounting anxiety around the world about the risks of a protracted stand-off. The council’s first four ballots had produced something of a stalemate, with all the dozen candidates in the fray attracting a number of negative votes, and it had been feared that the two negative votes Guterres carried in the fourth ballot were those of permanent members opposed to his election. On the fifth ballot, however, this turned out not to be the case, and a general sigh of relief could be heard around Turtle Bay as consensus was announced on his name.

United Nations appoints Guterres as new secretary general

As the candidate who came second last time, 10 years ago, when Ban Ki-moon was elected in similar circumstances, I followed the votes with interest. At the same time I read a number of references to the 2006 race that were, frankly, inaccurate.

While some things have been published, particularly in India, that I have preferred not to respond to out of respect for the conventions of confidentiality, one point is worth clarifying, particularly for readers in East Asia. It is simply untrue that my run for the secretary generalship, as India’s official candidate, was scuttled by China.

Shashi Tharoor addresses the media after meeting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006, when he was the Indian nominee for UN Secretary General. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor addresses the media after meeting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi in June 2006, when he was the Indian nominee for UN Secretary General. Photo: AFP

This was an obvious concern when the Indian government first mulled my candidacy. I mentioned it myself in my first conversation on the subject with then prime minister Manmohan Singh. Beijing and New Delhi had not seen eye to eye for years over many issues, and there was an increasing perception that Washington, as well as some Asean capitals, were seeing newly resurgent India as a plausible counterweight to the overweening (and growing) international prominence of China. Though India firmly disavowed any intention of playing such a role, there was always a possibility that China would see an Indian secretary general nominee as a tool in a broader strategy to cut China down to size on the world stage.

More Tharoor: What the Rio Olympics medal tally says about China-India comparisons

The essential thing, therefore, was to find out. I was an Indian but had never served as a government official, spending the preceding 28 years as an international civil servant. Would the Chinese government see me principally as the UN official many of them knew, and whose professional performance they had witnessed at close quarters at UN Headquarters, or as the thin Indian edge of an anti-Chinese wedge?

Tharoor lost out to Ban Ki-moon. Photo: AFP
Tharoor lost out to Ban Ki-moon. Photo: AFP

The prime minister said that the government would make its own inquiries, but that I should do so as well, in the hope that a personal approach would elicit a franker response than a diplomatic query.

Accordingly, I spoke to the Permanent Representative of China, the energetic ambassador Wang Guangya, to say that I would like to call on his foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing. “You are always welcome,” the diplomat replied, to which I responded: “But I want to convey through you why I want to see him. India is considering nominating me to contest for the post of secretary general – and this is what I wish to discuss with him. If he does not wish to receive me on this subject, I will get the message and no embarrassment need be caused on either side.”

“Let me check with Beijing and get back to you,” Wang replied.

Wang Guangya. Photo: AFP
Wang Guangya. Photo: AFP

It took him a few days but he did indeed call back. “Foreign Minister Li will be every pleased to receive you,” he said.

“Let me make this clear,” I said. “I am coming to discuss my possible candidacy for secretary general. Since it is a personal issue, I am not coming on an official mission for the UN. And since I do not work for the Indian government, I am not coming as an Indian emissary either. This is a purely personal visit, for which I am taking annual leave and travelling on my own.”

“In that case,” Wang replied, “we will send a car for you to the airport.”

They did, and I was promptly whisked off to see Foreign Minister Li, an experienced and jovial diplomat whom I had known when he served as China’s permanent representative to the UN in New York from 1993 to 1995, at the height of the Yugoslav crisis.

Former Chinese foreign affairs minister Li Zhaoxing. Photo: AFP
Former Chinese foreign affairs minister Li Zhaoxing. Photo: AFP

The understanding was that I could expect 20 minutes with him and an hour with senior officials of the foreign ministry, followed by a lunch.

The meeting duly began with all formality. “China strongly wishes to see an Asian secretary general elected this time,” the foreign minister noted after politely expressing China’s appreciation for my record at the UN, “but do you think there may be a risk that too many candidates could undermine each other?”

More Tharoor: The dangers of the e-mail tsunami

This could have been a signal that China felt there were enough contenders in the fray already – or that an Indian would be an unwelcome addition to the list. But Li went out of his way to dispel such an interpretation of his remarks. He mentioned China’s growing closeness to India and expressed satisfaction that New Delhi was considering seeking such a position at the UN. He explored my thoughts on various world issues. Our conversation was wide-ranging, substantive and amicable; the 20 minutes assigned stretched on to an hour and a half. At one point, Li switched to French, and was pleasantly surprised at the fluency of my response.

Shashi Tharoor, candidate for the post of UN Secretary-General, arrives in New Delhi on June 18, 2006. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor, candidate for the post of UN Secretary-General, arrives in New Delhi on June 18, 2006. Photo: AFP

After an amicable exchange in that language, he laughed: “Now all you need to do is learn Chinese!” He offered, with a smile, to be my teacher, and proceeded to scribble my name in Chinese characters on a napkin.

As the meeting drew to a close, his tone turned grave. He spoke slowly and clearly in English: “Please convey to your government that China will not stand in your way.”

China will not stand in your way. There was only one possible interpretation of these words: China would not use its veto to block me.

If China had already made its mind up in favour of another candidate, there was no sign of it. It was obvious to me that my nationality would not render me their preferred choice in the post, but this was a clear message that they would not explicitly oppose me either. It was now up to me to fare better than the other contenders.

Author Elie Wiesel, Jane Goodall, actor Michael Douglas and author Anna Cataldi attend a UN Messengers of Peace press conference moderated by Shashi Tharoor in New York in 2005. Photo: AFP
Author Elie Wiesel, Jane Goodall, actor Michael Douglas and author Anna Cataldi attend a UN Messengers of Peace press conference moderated by Shashi Tharoor in New York in 2005. Photo: AFP

The foreign minister was as good as his word. When the first “straw poll” took place at the Security Council in July, Ban led with 12 votes and I was second with 10. One of my 10 votes was China’s.

Council members could vote positively, negatively or with no opinion on all the candidates and, as we subsequently learned, China had voted positively for all the Asian candidates, including me.

We know the rest of the story from American sources, notably from Surrender Is Not An Option, the no-holds-barred memoir published by the then US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who disloyally revealed that his instructions from then US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice were: “We don’t want a strong secretary general”. Bolton’s book confirmed that Wang had voted for all the Asian candidates on the first ballot; China then abstained on my candidacy on subsequent ballots but, as it promised, it never used its veto against me. That was done by the United States, which, Bolton reveals, backed Ban to the hilt and lobbied on his behalf with other Security Council members.

When I had dinner with former president George W. Bush on his visit to Mumbai in early 2011, he grinned broadly and said: “Oh, I left that all to Condi!”

For the secretary of state and her department, three considerations appear to have prevailed. First, the bilateral relationship with South Korea. At a time when various irritants had cropped up between Washington and then president Roh Moo-hyun, the last thing Rice needed was to antagonise the South Koreans on an issue that clearly mattered a great deal to them, and did not matter much to the US.

Second, Washington never got the impression that the UN secretary generalship was as much a priority for India as it clearly was for the South Koreans. If Indian diplomats ever mentioned it, they claimed, they did so with the air of officials merely doing their duty. The political and governmental leadership, though sincere and loyal in their support, were understandably much more focused on the Indo-US nuclear deal that was taking shape at the same time.

The third factor that weighed heavily with the Americans was the collapse of their warm relationship with the incumbent secretary general, Kofi Annan. Annan had been an American favourite, strongly backed by the Clinton administration for election in 1996 and supported by Bush for re-election in 2001. But in 2003, he had said – after being badgered into a corner by a BBC interviewer – that the Iraq war was “illegal”.

The former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, whose warm relationship with the Americans collapsed after he said the Iraq war was illegal. Photo: AFP
The former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, whose warm relationship with the Americans collapsed after he said the Iraq war was illegal. Photo: AFP

This had set off a firestorm in neocon-run DC, and unleashed a savage backlash against Annan, with lurid media exposés of the “oil-for-food” scandal being used to tarnish his image.

As the question of his successor came up, one senior American told me, Washington was determined: “No more Kofis”.

By which was meant that the US would not want a secretary general who, like Annan, could appeal above the heads of governments to a global public and use the world media to advance his UN agenda. Those terms, alas, fitted one candidate to a T – or an ST.

Could Hillary Clinton and Kofi Annan sit on Nobel Peace Prize committee?

These three factors – the bilateral relationship with Korea, a perception of a lack of conviction on India’s part, and the Bush administration’s desire not to repeat the Annan experiment of a “strong” secretary general – combined to ensure the US veto that scuttled my candidacy.

It had nothing to do with India’s size, India’s Security Council aspirations or indeed any political skulduggery at home.

Shashi Tharoor speaks at the UN headquarters in New York in April 2004 during his time as UN Undersecretary-General. Photo: AFP
Shashi Tharoor speaks at the UN headquarters in New York in April 2004 during his time as UN Undersecretary-General. Photo: AFP

Least of all did it have anything to do with China. Even if Beijing, as Bolton’s memoir indicates, was quite happy with the outcome, China never did oppose me.

Current relations between India and China are complicated. On the positive side are a burgeoning US$70 billion in bilateral trade (skewed heavily in China’s favour), and promises of increased Chinese investment in India’s growing economy, amid a relaxation by the Modi government of restrictions on Chinese involvement in such sectors as ports, power and telecoms. On the negative side are the continuing lack of progress in resolving their six-decade border dispute and Chinese diplomatic actions in support of Pakistan. Global geopolitics continues to pit India and China against each other on some issues even as they cooperate on others.

RELATED ARTICLES
Antonio Guterres surrounded by Somali refugees on the outskirts of Dagahaley Camp in Kenya. Photo: AP
UNITED NATIONS
‘All the world listens to him’: how Antonio Guterres carved legacy as a tireless refugee advocate before securing top job at UN
Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General-designate of the United Nations, addresses the UN General Assembly after being approved by the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York,. Photo: EPA
UNITED NATIONS
‘Moral duty’ of ensuring peace is top priority for next UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres
Antonio Guterres pauses during a news conference. Photo: Reuters
UNITED NATIONS
United Nations appoints Guterres as new secretary general
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres speaks during a news conference at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo: AP
UNITED NATIONS
Choice for UN chief offers hope the body can meet the many challenges of today
Antonio Guterres surrounded by Somali refugees on the outskirts of Dagahaley Camp in Kenya. Photo: AP
UNITED NATIONS
‘All the world listens to him’: how Antonio Guterres carved legacy as a tireless refugee advocate before securing top job at UN
Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General-designate of the United Nations, addresses the UN General Assembly after being approved by the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York,. Photo: EPA
UNITED NATIONS
‘Moral duty’ of ensuring peace is top priority for next UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres
1
2
3
4
It is in the interest of all Asians that the two regional giants should manage their complicated relationship constructively. But there is no reason at all to add to these complications a problem that never existed. Ten years ago, China did not stand in my way.

kit · Post by **kit** » 23 Oct 2016 12:04

Are there any permanent friends or enemies in international politics .?? NO .. only interests .

US saying no need for a alliance
Russia cozying to pakistan ( what they will get ?..except intelligence on terror networks in central asia )

Please stop saying India has no friends etc etc .. no country in this world has ...in the real sense

convergence of interests .. huge ..America and India has to a very large extent enough to make it its best friend with benefits
Most countries do not have any issues ( big ) ones with India save one ! ( that China does seem to is a different matter .. take pakistan out of the equation and you will see light and reason ). China needs to be dealt with from a position of strength.

US need to act on terror in pakistan right now.. it will lose its chance if China replaces it .. but i doubt Clinton will do it .. a very pro est lady she will keep the wars and warmongering going on for 4 yr

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2016 03:51

Exclusive: Why Pakistan May Stop Getting F-16 Fighters From US

If India were to acquire the US-designed F-16 fighter it would effectively mean that the Pakistan Air Force will not be able to acquire the latest variant of the jet that it has operated for 33 years.

That's because Lockheed Martin has proposed to the Indian government that it is willing to transfer its entire F-16 manufacturing line from Fort Worth in the US to India as part of the government's Make in India policy. In doing so, Lockheed would also aim to transfer the production of structural components of the F-16 from production facilities in multiple countries in a phased approach. If new-build F-16s are eventually constructed in India, there would be no question of them being exported to Pakistan. It is also unlikely that a production facility would be set up for the supply of just a handful of new-build F-16s to Pakistan.

Earlier this week, Lockheed Martin officially responded to an Indian government letter asking whether they would be able to provide the Indian Air Force with a high performance, single engine, multi-role fighter. Lockheed, which had also submitted an unsolicited bid earlier this year, has always stated that its F-16 should be the fighter of choice for the IAF despite it being the main fighter operated by its adversary, the Pakistan Air Force.

Senior executives of Lockheed Martin have indicated to NDTV that the transfer of the F-16 production line to India would mean that India and the US will have an altogether new strategic relationship since India would become the world's largest supply base for the 3,200 F-16s being operated by 24 countries around the world. Pakistan would be unwilling to acquire a made-in-India F-16 Block 70, the latest variant of the jet being proposed for India. India would, obviously, not be willing to supply its primary adversary with a fighter jet.

That said, Pakistan could, hypothetically, acquire components of its existing F-16 fighters from India if the production line were transferred here though Lockheed Martin executives point out that these spares would be stocked at company facilities outside India which would meet the requirement of any country.

Inputs from the F-16 radars and other sensors would be processed and presented through multi-function displays in the cockpit and a helmet-mounted sight worn by the pilot.

Importantly, the variant of the jet that Lockheed is offering India is far more advanced than that operated by Pakistan since it would include technology used in the latest US Air Force fighters, the F-22 and the F-35. According to Randall L. Howard, who looks after F-16 Business Development for Lockheed Martin, "leveraging the technology that we've designed and integrated on F-22 and F-35, we are reintegrating those technologies back into the F-16. We're putting state of the art mission computers, data management systems, a one Gigabyte ethernet data system and a new centre pedestal display" onto the F-16 Block 70. In simple terms this means that the F-16, if acquired by the Indian Air Force, would have unparalleled data-fusion whereby inputs from its radars and other sensors would be processed and presented to the pilot in a cogent, easy-to-understand format on multi-function displays in the cockpit and a helmet-mounted sight worn by the pilot. The pilot would be able to simultaneously detect dozens of targets and threats in the air, on the ground and out at sea depending on the terrain.

But Lockheed Martin knows that winning a multi-billion dollar contract in India will not be easy. Swedish firm Gripen International is also responding to the Defence Ministry's letter by offering its state-of-the-art Gripen-E fighter which has recently been acquired by Brazil. Gripen’s parent company SAAB has offered to work with Hindustan Aeronautics to develop a new variant of India's Tejas Light Combat Aircraft and also transfer technology for India to develop its next indigenous fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), which has a stealth design. The Gripen is also, fundamentally, a newer design than the F-16, having entered service for the first time in the late nineties as opposed to the F-16, which was developed in the seventies.

Ironically, both the F-16 and the Gripen had been rejected by the Air Force when it shortlisted the more capable French Dassault Rafale fighter as part of its Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft tender. That tender, however, fell through, and India ultimately had to acquire just 36 Rafale fighters in an off-the-shelf purchase from France in a deal worth approximately 58,000 crores though its initial requirement was for at least 126 jets. The F-16 and the Gripen are now back in contention because the government has decided to operate different categories of fighter aircraft - the Sukhoi-30 (a heavy fighter), the Rafale (a medium weight fighter), the F-16 or Gripen (a light to medium weight fighter) and the indigenous Tejas (a light weight fighter).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2016 04:15

Lockheed takes next step in moving F-16 production to India

Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT) signaled to the Indian government this week its interest in supplying the country with F-16 fighters, touching off the start of a process that could see the Bethesda-based defense manufacturer move facilities out of Fort Worth, Texas, and into India.

Randy Howard, director of F-16 Business Development for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, told me that last week India reached out to the company to gauge its interest in helping build a future fleet of single-engine fighter crafts and Lockheed quickly responded in the affirmative.
Lockheed Martin is laying the groundwork for potential sales of F-16s to India, as well as for building a future manufacturing hub in the country.
Enlarge

Lockheed isn’t just looking for a new customer in India, but a new manufacturing partner and base of operations for the final assembly of F-16s. The company’s proposal will "hit the sweet spot of ‘make in India'” initiatives that Lockheed has pursued more aggressively this year, Howard said. Lockheed already builds C-130J Super Hercules empennages out of Hyderabad in partnership with Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. (TASL) and sees an opening to expand those opportunities following the inking of a U.S.-India agreement in April to share defense logistics.

Over the coming months, Lockheed will continue to have discussions with India, though Howard said the timeline on a future competition is still unclear.

On Sept. 23, India signed a deal with French aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation S.A. for 36 of its Rafale fighter jets. The negotiations for those jets had begun in 2012, but dragged on for years. India had originally planned to procure 126 but trimmed it down to 36, citing high costs.

But as Howard and other analysts have pointed out, that still leaves India with a shortfall. And the long-term needs could go beyond just the 90 scrapped from the Rafale deal. New York credit rating firm Moody’s Investors Service wrote in a report last month, it’s far from certain that any future deals would favor the incumbent.

"Even though the Rafale was selected for this initial batch of aircraft, there will be stiff competition from other competing bidders/equipment...for any follow-on business,” the report said, pointing to Lockheed and The Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) as potential future bidders.

Howard said that should Lockheed emerge as the winner in any future Indian fighter deal, there’s a potential opportunity to sell about 100 F-16s to India — though he added that’s more of a loose estimation than it is a firm number.

But Lockheed wouldn’t stop at India. It’s potential future Indian operations would build F-16s for export as well. Howard said customers could include Indonesia, Colombia, the Middle East and Eastern European countries still using old Soviet fighters.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Oct 2016 05:51

NRao wrote:Exclusive: Why Pakistan May Stop Getting F-16 Fighters From US

Rest assured that the F-35 will be offered by the HRC administration to Pakistan as part of a financial aid program. I'd be willing to take bets on this.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Oct 2016 06:02

Russians, I thought, had agreed to sell the Su-35. No?

Anyways, F-35 to Pakistan is old news. NationalInterest.org/com had already leaked that news in Dec, 2015. Too late.

In either case, it proves that the Chinese copies of the F-35 are worthless.

added l8r:

MII F-35 to Pakistan?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 24 Oct 2016 08:01

I think F-35s may very well fly OVER Pakistan, but I doubt that they will be Pakistani. Unless the F-35 program is abandoned like the Northrop F-5. I don't see a lot of F-15s or F-22s in the PAF, why F-35s unless Lockheed is desperate? Maybe HiC will sell F-35s to Afghanistan: they need those a lot more.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 24 Oct 2016 09:29

NRao wrote:Russians, I thought, had agreed to sell the Su-35. No?

Anyways, F-35 to Pakistan is old news. NationalInterest.org/com had already leaked that news in Dec, 2015. Too late.

In either case, it proves that the Chinese copies of the F-35 are worthless.

added l8r:

MII F-35 to Pakistan?

The Pakis can't afford anything except for gifted Chinese knock offs, however, that will be until there is s US aid package to TSP coming FY18.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Oct 2016 00:51

Lockheed Martin plans India-centred global supply chain

Paranjape: That is correct, what as Randall mentioned what we are looking at is establishing global supply chain that will be centred in India, so the F-16 production line will move to India that means that we will start manufacturing not just assembling the aircraft, but we want to move the entire aircraft as much as we can and we want to start manufacturing in India.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 25 Oct 2016 04:03

India should not fall for this. Lockheed is so scared of the LCA program that they want to kill it by offering illusory promises of local manufacturing when they know that the market for the F-16s is dead or beginning to dwindle. They want us to pay for the cost of the manufacturing equipment and the cost of maintaining spares. The majority of the 3,200 f-16s are due to be phased out. The US Air Force which has the largest number of f-16s has its own spares and would not likely to call for large orders of spares since they want to phase them out in favor of F-35s. So do European forces. Their planes are nearing the end of their projected lifespan. There will be very limited market for F-16 spares.

It's a scam. Do not fall for it. Concentrate on developing the LCA program and make it work and compete with the leading avionist companies in the world.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Oct 2016 19:04

NRao wrote:Lockheed Martin plans India-centred global supply chain

Paranjape: That is correct, what as Randall mentioned what we are looking at is establishing global supply chain that will be centred in India, so the F-16 production line will move to India that means that we will start manufacturing not just assembling the aircraft, but we want to move the entire aircraft as much as we can and we want to start manufacturing in India.

Almost couple of years back there was a news report that Lockheed is ready to shift the who assembly line of f-16 for unbelievable price. I don't remember exactly but maybe for 16 million dollars per plane.

At that time some poster maybe Shiv ji had posted in answer, I paraphrase "...that means Tejas is really becoming a threat..."

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Oct 2016 19:56

what Lockmart is afraid of is a dead end product line which the f-16 most certainly is.

no stealthski. gotta nice weapons suite though.