Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Secret behind India-US honey moon

192 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

The secret is CHINA...


Of course it must be India - but in that case, why not say so? Is it possible that the Bush Administration wants something from India? Yes, it does. It wants India to become the South Asian anchor of its strategy for "containing" China militarily

to cope with the rise of China to great-power status". They want to encircle China with a ring of American allies in a reprise of the US containment strategy against the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s. In this strategy India is the main prize

Gwynne Dyer: US in dangerous game over India


A curious thing happened in Tokyo last week. United States Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns gave a speech there saying that the US backed a limited expansion of the United Nations Security Council from 15 to 20 members.

Only "two or so" of the five new seats should be permanent members with full veto rights, however - and Japan should be one.

Now, here's the funny thing. How did it happen that they mulled all this over at the State Department, and decided there must be only two new permanent members, and agreed Japan should be one - then dropped the subject? Maybe it was too nice out and they all decided to go golfing.

Call me cynical, but I think they know who they want the other permanent member to be. They just want something in return before they say so.

India should have had a permanent seat on the Security Council from the start, but the United Nations was set up in 1945 and India didn't get its independence from Britain until 1947. For 58 years the second-most populous country has been frozen out of the world's highest council.

Of course it must be India - but in that case, why not say so? Is it possible that the Bush Administration wants something from India? Yes, it does. It wants India to become the South Asian anchor of its strategy for "containing" China militarily.

The neo-conservatives who control defence and foreign policy under President Bush were demanding a huge rise in US military spending even before September 11 "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status". They want to encircle China with a ring of American allies in a reprise of the US containment strategy against the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s.

In this strategy India is the main prize, and the Bush Administration is trying to woo New Delhi into a close military and strategic relationship. It is offering India first-line F-16 fighters now, and access to the next generation of US combat aircraft when it becomes available. It is offering Patriot and Arrow missiles, access to American civil nuclear technology, and high-tech co-operation in the domain of satellites and launch vehicles. Above all, it is offering India the leading role in its emerging Asian alliance structure.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Government is clearly nervous about this, but also flattered. As his media spokesman Sanjaya Baru put it: "India is an ancient civilisation and has a mind of its own, but our views are moving in parallel with the US and Anglo-Saxon world."

Although no date has yet been officially confirmed, President Bush has several times said he hopes to visit India before the end of this year.

There are two main obstacles to this strategic match. One is the fact (which even bothers members of Manmohan Singh's Cabinet) that this sort of alliance would be a betrayal of everything India has stood for since independence, and that it might be preferable not to spend the first half of the 21st century mired in a military confrontation with India's giant neighbour across the Himalayas.

The other is the Indian Communists, who hold almost 70 seats in the Lok Sabha (parliament), crucial to the survival of Singh's minority coalition Government. They are dead set against what would amount to a military alliance with the US (though it would never be called that), and so Singh's Government wavers, unsure which way to jump. Meanwhile, China has started making counter-offers on free trade, the settlement of old border disputes and the like.

So the United States has produced another carrot: a permanent seat for India on the Security Council. Except that Washington will only throw its weight behind the idea publicly if and when India signs up for the containment strategy.

It is a dangerous and needless strategy that will alarm China and lead to prolonged military confrontation in Asia. Indians should not be seduced by it. China is not their enemy. For that matter, it is not America's enemy, either.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

India and US sign defence accord

India and US have signed a 10-year agreement to strengthen defence ties between the two countries.

The landmark agreement will help facilitate joint weapons production, co-operation on missile defence and the transfer of technology.

Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed the agreement.

There has been a significant transformation in relations between the two countries in recent years.

The agreement was signed during Mr Mukherjee's visit to the US - his first since assuming his post last year.

The United States and India have entered a new era

Statement on the agreement

"The United States and India have entered a new era," a statement issued after the signing of the agreement in Washington said.

"We are transforming our relationship to reflect our common principles and shared national interests."

According to AFP news agency, the statement said the ministers agreed to set up a "defence procurement and production 'group' to oversee defence trade, as well as prospects for co-production and technology collaboration".

Biggest partner

"Today, we agree on a new framework that builds on past successes, seizes new opportunities and charts a course for the US-India defence relationship for the next 10 years," the statement said.

The statement said that the two nations had advanced to "unprecedented levels of cooperation".

The defence pact came ahead of a three-day visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US in July.

In a speech in Washington on Tuesday, Mr Mukherjee urged the US to lift curbs on nuclear technology transfers to India.

The US imposed the restrictions in the wake of India's nuclear tests in 1998.

Economic ties have grown between the two countries, once on opposite sides of the Cold War fence, and the US is now India's biggest trading partner.

The two countries have also overseen increased military ties, holding joint exercises and expanded civilian, space and hi-tech contacts.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2005/06/29 05:40:18 GMT


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The US would use India to fight a future war against China, bringing destruction to India, and China. Which would severely affect China's rising economy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

BBC? probably produced by an Indian... yep look here same story... BBC has degraded just like Janes and AFM.,0008.htm

India, US partners in arms

Pramit Pal Chaudhuri

New Delhi, June 29, 2005

The 10-year defence agreement signed between India and United States on Tuesday could be a turning point. It could also prove to be a mere footnote. That will depend on just how “the new era” in bilateral relations unfolds over the next decade. [We saw a lot of hot air in the past. Let us wait and see]

Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s visit was about confidence-building. New Delhi has no doubts that US weapons technology is a quantum level above anyone else’s. And its experiences with post-Cold War Russia as an arms supplier have not been happy. [so pak planes are way above Indian Russian planes? Smile]

India can rightly play the sceptic given the US record as a military supplier in South Asia since 1965. And a sole superpower can afford to break promises.

Which is why, official sources said, half the agreement focused on “co-production”. This is Washington’s penance for past sins. Indian officials say, “It is not US practice to allow co-production.” [we willee. US never allows high tech for export and certainly not latest... Let us forget source codes.]

More significantly, the US is holding out the promise of taking joint manufacturing to levels that India has not enjoyed with other arms supplying nations. [india has used so many foereign experts in all Indian products that they hardly can be called Indian. So what will be the difference if they start assembling second rate US products?]

The Indo-US agreement is also laying the groundwork for not just weapons platforms but also the hi-tech eyes and ears which make the US military better than the rest. The idea is to take defence cooperation beyond just arms-buying to about how to transform the Indian military. One strategic area: taking missile defence beyond even the Patriot-3. [beyond? Pac3 is not even on the table. Nothing final.]

In March, US officials had spoken of making India a 21st century great power and “understanding” the “military implications” of that policy. Sources said the agreement was designed to help put flesh on the bones of that policy. [big dreams wet dreams]

There are obvious obstacles that the two sides will have to tackle. As Mukherjee noted, the US side needed to sweep away the cobwebs of technology sanctions. New Delhi had to try and streamline its complex and opaque defence procurement system. [indian will allow pak getting Russina weapons... Indian government will need three decades to make a decission... We will see how much all weather friend they will get if China becomes super power... Sorry... Which is already super power and will become world largest economy...]

The really big question, felt officials in New Delhi and Washington, was for India to decide how firmly it was prepared to take the extended hand of the US. “America is putting a lot on the table. India has to decide how much it is prepared to eat,” said one observer. [Eat? We will see...]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post


Nixon made offensive remarks against Indira

Washington, June 29 (AP): President Richard M Nixon referred privately to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as an "old witch" and national security adviser Henry Kissinger insulted Indians in general, according to transcripts of Oval Office tapes and newly declassified documents.

Nixon and Kissinger met in the Oval Office on the morning of November 5, 1971, to discuss Nixon's conversation with Gandhi the day before. "We really slobbered over the old witch," Nixon told Kissinger, according to a transcript of their conversation released on Tuesday as part of a State Department compilation of significant documents involving American foreign policy.

Nixon's remark came as the two men speculated about Gandhi's motives during the White House meeting and discussed India's intentions in the looming conflict with neighbouring Pakistan. The United States was allied with Pakistan and saw India as too closely allied with the Soviet Union.

"The Indians are *******s anyway," Kissinger told the President. "They are starting a war there."

Kissinger also told his boss that he had bested Gandhi in their meeting.

"While she was a *****, we got what we wanted too," Kissinger said. "She will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn't give her a warm reception and therefore in despair she's got to go to war."

Other documents chart US contacts with China, as facilitated by Pakistan, and US concern that India was developing nuclear technology. The archive covers US policy in South Asia in 1971 and 1972.

The documents, many declassified only earlier this month, generally cover old ground, several Cold War scholars said. Still, the particulars are intriguing, including rosters of who was in various meetings and quotes from conversations among Nixon, his aides and foreign leaders.

"They see everything through a Cold War prism," said Bill Burr, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. "It's a wholly distorted view."

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Funny from CMF

'we are inferior to the white people because the white people say so, but we are superior to the chinese because the white people like us better. this means that whatever the chinese are developing, we well set our own project to be technocally superior, cheaper to make and we will do it all in less time compared to the chinese.'

the end result is that while they set themselves targets divorced from reality and keep having to start over, we chinese made small but steady progress that built up to overcome the greater access to western technology that india has.

now that china is far ahead of india, the indians are getting ever more desperate and feel that it is a 'triamph' whenever they field something better then what china has, no matter the cost or the benefits (or rather lack of it) india gets.

alas, we have examples like the MKI, backfire, akula, and retired soviet carriers etc. all of which are expansive white elephants that would be all but impossible to repair let alone replace in times of war should their makers stop shipping in parts and replacement kits, and serve little use apart from boosting the ego of indians and allowing them point and say, 'look at us, we have this and you have not, so XXX country like us better then you, ner ner ner...'.

what 'indiginous' indian project there are are faced with such high expectations using china as a benchmark that to even have a small chance of meeting the specs means using ever more forign parts and engineers.

this gives us things like the LCA, dehli DDG, bahmos, indian AWACS etc, which are foreign in all the important areas so as to offer india the same problems as the previous list with only marginal savings through the use of indian paint.

when faced with the above problems, indians like to misquote deng and say that 'the colour of the cat is unimportant as long as it catched mice' while completely missing the point that india gains precious little from all these expansive projects and systems whereas china never waste any opportunity to learn and advance.

this means that if the indians don't get their act together soon, the MCA will either never get off the drawing board, or it will be a russian designed, russian manufactured airframe assembled in india under the supervision of europeans and stuffed with downgraded american electronics with indian paint.


06/29/2005, 10:07:22

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

BTW... herer MCA...

Medium Combat Aircraft

Aircraft Specifications

The twin-engined Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) is a stealthy Gen-5 combat aicraft optimised for strike missions. It will complement LCA and Su-30MKI as India's leading combat planes. If given the go-ahead, it should fly before 2010 and be inducted by 2015.India is currently developing LCA a light multirole attack plane. The only components common between MCA and LCA will be part of the wing, the Kaveri engine, and some systems and subsystems. MCA will be much heavier (12 ton dry weight).

The LCA has started flying in 2001 and should be inducted around 2008. MCA itself should make its first flight before 2010. It will face direct competition from China's J-12 , which should come out before 2015.

Why India needs the MCA

MCA is basically envisioned as a replacement for the British Jaguar and Mirage 2000 the IAF flies, which will be phased out by 2015.


The State owned Gas Turbine Research Establishment [GTRE] was to indigenously develop the Kaveri engine to power the LCA and MCA.

The Kaveri engines in the MCA will have a slightly higher dry thrust than in the LCA engine. These engines will also have thrust-vectoring nozzles. It is unknown which company will be providing this technology, or whether it will be developed in India itself. A supercruise capability is not being sought. The twin engined aircraft is planned to have a thrust ratio of 7:8:1. The MCA will use India's own radar-absorbent material to reduce radar cross-section.

Kaveri engine is a two-spool bypass turbofan engine having three stages of transonic low pressure compressor driven by a single-stage low pressure turbine. The core engine consists of six-stage transonic compressor driven by single-stage cooled high pressure turbine. The engine is provided with a compact annular combustor with airblast atomisers. The aerothermodynamic and mechanical designs of engine components have been evolved using many in-house and commercially developed software for solid and fluid mechanics.

Kaveri three-stage transonic fan, designed for good stall margin and bird strike capability, handles an air mass flow of 78 kg/s and develops a pressure Combustion Chamber Liner ratio of 3.4. The six-stage variable capacity transonic compressor of Kaveri develops a pressure ratio of 6.4. The variable schedule of inlet guide vanes and two rows of stator is through FADEC control system to open the stator blades in a predetermined manner. High intensity low UD ratio annular combustor of Kaveri engine incorporates air blast injection of fuel for uniform outlet temperature profile and reduced carbon emission.

Kaveri high pressure turbine is provided with an efficient cooling design incorporating augmented convection-cum-film cooling for the vanes and combination cooling for the rotor blade to handle up to 1700 K turbine entry temperature. Kabini engine comprising high pressure compressor, combustor and high pressure turbine has undergone high altitude test at facilities abroad successfully demonstrating the flat rating concept of Kaveri engine assembly and in particular the combustor high altitude ignition and stability performances.

Kaveri engine has been specifically designed for Indian environment. [not functioning?]The engine is a variable cycle-flat-rated engine in which the thrust drop due to high ambient, forward speed is well compensated by the increased turbine entry temperature at the spool Kabini altitude test speed. This concept has been already demonstrated with high temperature and pressure condition in DRDO's High Mach Facility. Kaveri engine is controlled by Kaveri full authority digital control unit {KADECU), which has been developed and successfully demonstrated at DRDO's test bed.


Stealthiness will be a priority and hence the MCA will have two small, outward-canted fins and the external fuel tanks will be mounted above the wings. Absence of a vertical fin improves stealth. However, not all weapons will be internal and hence will compromize the stealth.

If all progresses according to plan, MCA will become first military fighter that has no tail - at all. USA is the only country to have seriously pursued such aircraft. It experimented with tail-less design in X-36. F-16X concept is another tail-less concept.

Tail-less design has been seen in Flying Wings, but these represent a separate class of aeroplanes. To realize the MCA, India will have to develop cutting edge technology. US help in this area is obviously expected.

Latest Developments

In June 2001, India was offered 'joint development and production' of a new 5th generation fighter by Russia. Russia has been trying to sell this concept both to China and India for some time, but this time it was made directly to India's Defense Minister. The new fighter will 'counter' America's second 5th gen Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] which too is undergoing flight testing.

The plane we are talking about is Russia's Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi (PAK FA), which means 'Future Air Complex for Tactical Air Forces' : (Russian Name=Wierd Name). It is intended to be the same size as the US JSF but have a mission profile closer to the F-22 Raptor, with air superiority being the primary mission and ground attack and reconnaissance being secondary. Also similar to the JSF, the cost is expected to be about $30 million each. Even the deadlines assumed by the Russians are directly related to the date of entering JSF into the market.

Frozen out of most of the world's civil aircraft market, Russia retains an unquestioned presence only in fighters and helicopters, which means that developing a new generation of fighters is critical to the survival of the Russian aerospace industry, Russian officials say.

"The creation of the new-generation fighter is a matter of life or death for the Russian aircraft industry," said Evgniy Fedosov, chief of the State Scientific-Research Institute of Aviation Systems, called GosNIIAS.

The first deliveries, both for Russian armed forces and for export, would be possible in 2011-12. The trick, however, will be finding the money to develop the fighter. The first source of funds, small and uncertain, is the Russia's Ministry of Defence budget. The second source, several times larger, is the export revenues of the companies participating in the programme. The third possible source is financing from other countries interested in buying the aircraft.

Several proposals exist for the PAK FA. Sukhoi, for example, modified it S-54 trainer project to come up with its S-55 LFI concept. Mikoyan & Gurevich [MiG] has showcased - the I-2000 - Interceptor-2000 (Istribityel-2000)

In November 2001, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, Ilya Klebanov's announced that India and Russia had agreed to jointly develop a fifth-generation strike aircraft. This was the result of a four-day visit to Russia by India's Prime Minister. It was quoted by the RIA Novosti news agency as saying that the two sides were preparing a presentation of the new project in India in the first quarter of 2002. It would be the most ambitious and sophisticated defence project undertaken by the two countries so far. It seems that the agreement is currently only 'in principle' - not signed on the dotted line.

At the time of writing this piece, the PAK FA was yet to be named, which would be done only after Sukhoi presents their design to the Russian government. This process should be complete in 2003 only. It is a common misconception that Sukhoi's S-37 Berkut (Golden Eagle) is Russia's next fighter - it may or may not be, but should heavily influence it's design.

Related link:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Make no mistake, US is playing the game.. It will continue to throw a bone at India...

Is US containing China?


- Is the containment of China an undeclared objective of the Bush administration in its second term? That query was sparked by Henry A Kissinger's opinion piece in The Washington Post (June 13, 2005) entitled "China: Containment Won't Work".


Though America's pre-eminent foreign/security policy guru has in his characteristic fashion argued why such a policy will not work, I am intrigued that Kissinger should now so publicly contend against such a putative policy.

If it were an absolute no-no, clearly one would not expect him to ring the alarm bells as vigorously and publicly as he has chosen to do. Now consider, if you will, some of his dazzling arguments beginning with the disclosure that "various officials, members of Congress and the media are attacking China's policies."

Saying that China's emerging role is often compared to that of imperial Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, Kissinger explains that its implication is that "a strategic confrontation is inevitable and that the United States had best prepared for it." As he reminds us, the European system of the 19th century assumed that its major powers would, in their end, vindicate their interests by force.

In today's world of nuclear weapons, he argues, "war between major powers would be a catastrophe for all participants; there would be no winners; the task of reconstruction would dwarf the causes of the conflict." Rejecting the comparison of China with imperial Germany, America's eminence grise reminds us that "another special factor that a century ago drove the international system to confrontation was the provocative style of German diplomacy."

Moreover, as he explains, "military imperialism is not the Chinese style." China, as per the teachings of Clausewitz's counterpart Sun Tzu, "focuses on the psychological weakening of the adversary. China seeks its objectives by careful study, patience and the accumulation of nuances - only rarely does China risk a winner-take-all showdown." The former American secretary of state and national security adviser also argues that "it is unwise to substitute China for the Soviet Union and to apply it to the policy of military containment of the Cold War."

"The Soviet Union was heir to an imperialist tradition, which, between Peter the Great and the end of World War II, projected Russia from the region around Moscow to the center of Europe. The Chinese State in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years. The Russian empire was governed by force; the Chinese empire by cultural conformity with substantial force in the background. At the end of World War II, Russia found itself face to face with weak countries along all its borders and unwisely relied on a policy of occupation and intimidation beyond the long-term capability of the Russian State."

He claims that the strategic equation in Asia today is altogether different. "US policy in Asia must not mesmerize itself with a Chinese military buildup. There is no doubt that China is increasing its military forces, which were neglected during the first phase of its economic reform. But even at its highest estimate the Chinese military budget is less than 20 percent of America's; it is barely, if at all, ahead of that of Japan, India and Russia, all bordering China - not to speak of Taiwan's military modernization supported by American decision made in 2001."


In the News India-Times of June 10, Kissinger hints that India might be seduced by Washington, specifically cautioning that she "should not be part of American efforts to counterbalance China" as "Washington's military cooperation with India could complicate matters with China."

While in the exhaustive Washington Post write-up Kissinger did not specifically mention Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice's reference to the option of "friendly containment" of China, during her visit to Tokyo a couple of months ago - while paying tribute to the late George F. Kennan, the father of US's containment policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union - he did not make reference, either, to her earlier visit to New Delhi where the US's intention to help India with its ambitions to become a "global power" this century was trumpeted. To some, the US's torrid courtship of India suggests that "the US is offering some of its most sophisticated military technology" as George Melloan says in the Wall Street Journal of April 10.

"Included are F-16 and possibly F-18 fighter planes, high-tech command-and-control systems, and possibly technology transfers to enable the Indians to produce more of their own materiel. The Patriot defense system is being offered."

Clearly, the impending visit of Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee should throw further light on the subject, as also Indian Premier Manmohan Singh's July 16-18 US mission. Obviously, these will be closely monitored, not least by Pakistan but by a China which is surely not unaware of the massive US military presence not only in Iraq but also in Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, around her western rim.

To be sure, the significance of US's ties and its role in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea - on China's eastern periphery - is plainly not lost on Beijing. Be that as it may, for Nepal there is every reason to determine objectively whether Bush-II administration's baffling policy of dealing with Kathmandu exclusively through New Delhi is indeed an integral part of a containment of the China schema.

So, too, whether India is, for her part, in the game.

The Kathmandu Post.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

US is just playing a new game . It wants to counter China with India , both militarily and economically . It wants to bring mutual destruction of these two Asian giants and thus regain control of South and S.E Asia .This is similar to playing Hitler against the Soviet nation by Western powers in the 30s .

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Insulted and a condom

Eyes Wide Shut, India Enters Military Alliance With US

by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI - Once proudly nonaligned, India has turned its back on strategic policy independence through a military cooperation agreement with the United States that analysts say has taken the 5-year-old "strategic partnership" to an unprecedented plane.

The new "Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship" unveiled last week involves more than arms deals and envisages the "outsourcing" of several functions to India, including joint-military operations in third countries, patrolling of sea lanes, and disaster relief operations.

In addition, the two countries have also agreed to collaborate on ballistic missile defense and other research and development efforts, and to enhance "capabilities to combat" WMD proliferation.

"This is the most far-reaching and comprehensive military agreement that India has ever signed with any country," Achin Vanaik, an independent security analyst and political science professor at Delhi University, told IPS.

Vanaik said the deal went further than the treaty of friendship and cooperation signed in 1971 with the then-Soviet Union and aims to place Indo-U.S. security cooperation beyond the objective of meeting threats from one country or group of countries. "It is also a remarkably one-sided deal," he added. :D

Under the agreement, the U.S. will enlist India as the chief agency that helps it "embed" itself strategically in Asia so as to ensure Washington's dominance in this increasingly important region in the face of a rising challenge from China.

A senior U.S. official recently outlined the "embedding" rationale at a closed-door briefing in New Delhi.

In return, India is likely to be given the firm offer of some 1970s-generation weapons platforms like F-16 warplanes, and a new version of the Patriot anti-missile missile system, as well as co-production of U.S.-developed weapons.

The agreement only says that "our defense establishments shall … in the context of defense trade and a framework of technology security safeguards, increase opportunities for technology transfer, collaboration, co-production, and research and development."

But the agreement is a part realization of a U.S. offer outlined during a March 25 briefing by three senior U.S. administration officials "to help India become a world power in the 21st century."

It conforms to the stated U.S. goals of containing China; stabilizing Afghanistan, Nepal and Bangladesh; and dissuading Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

Going by past experience, as well as U.S. strategic doctrine, the joint and collaborative operations envisioned in the "framework" agreement will be fully controlled by the U.S. – despite the language of "partnership" and promoting "cooperation" when "it is in their common interest."

The U.S. insists on total hegemony and exclusive control over all such joint military operations. Even within NATO, the U.S. has always rejected the idea of having "two fingers" on the trigger.

The controlling finger is always American. This was the case in recent interventions from Somalia, through the former Yugoslavia, to Iraq. No amount of rhetoric about "partnership" and "common interest" can mask the great asymmetry between U.S. and Indian power and the crude Machiavellian calculations that go into Washington's strategic moves.

Evidence of the latter comes from new disclosures in the form of recently declassified official U.S. documents about Washington's perceptions of India around the time New Delhi intervened in the Bangladesh war in 1971.

These records show that then-U.S. President Richard Nixon said what the Indians "need really is … a mass famine … world opinion is on the Indian side but they are a slippery, treacherous people."

"It is a sour irony that Indian policymakers should have forgotten lessons from the past," said Anuradha Chenoy, professor of international relations at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Delhi.

"It is equally sad that they want India to become a great power by riding on the back of a predatory hegemon," she added. Under the new agreement, the U.S. would like to use India to outsource operations aimed at "defeating terrorism and violent religious extremism" and "protecting the free flow of commerce via land, air, and sea lanes" and preventing the spread of WMD. :D

This last is likely to take the form of Indian participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative, a limited agreement among just 21 states, mostly Western, to intercept suspect shipments on the high seas to check them for WMD or materials from which such weapons can be made.

India's participation in the PSI is likely to bring her into conflict with a number of Asian states which oppose it, including China, Iran, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Interdiction of third-country ships on the high seas is against the Law of the Seas. India's participation in such operations will also legitimize the U.S.' role as self-appointed gendarme of the world and blithely bypass the United Nations and other multilateral bodies.

One of the more tempting baits the U.S. is holding out to India concerns "co-production" of weapons, something Indian defense planners have always been keen on because it involves the transfer of technology. But this is only a promise yet.

"All in all, this seems like an outrageously unequal bargain," said Chenoy. "India will lose her policy autonomy and serve as a low-cost foot soldier or surrogate in the U.S. scheme of things," she said. :D

(Inter Press Service)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Washington draws India in against China

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (R1) meets with visiting Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee in the Pentagon on June 28, 2005. (AFP photo)


When cries grow louder in the US political circle for construction of an Asian allies network to guard against China, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed his visiting Indian counterpart Pranab Mukherjee an eye-catching defense cooperation agreement in the Pentagon on June 28.

The ten-year agreement focuses on cooperation in weaponry manufacturing and missile defense. The United States has recently made several moves in its Asian strategy, and the hand-shaking of the two defense ministers this time is regarded as another important step it made in Asia, which is partly intended to diminish China's influence in this region and to safeguard and expand US strategic interest in Asia.

" A new era of US-India relations "

Indian defense minister Mukherjee paid a nine-day visit to the United States this time, leading a huge delegation consisting of government officials and leaders in military industry. The visit reached its climax upon the signing of the agreement.

In this agreement entitled "New Framework for the US-India Defence Relationship", the United States grants India a series of "ally" treatments: joint weaponry production, cooperation on missile defense to be strengthened and a promise to lift soon US ban on export of sensitive military technologies to India. The United States pledged to conduct strategic talks with India, help India develop missile defense and other security facilities and cooperate with India in multiple fields such as science and technology, economy and energy. Many of such offers were once cancelled due to India's nuclear test in 1998.

In the statement afterward, the United States adopted a warm rhetoric it never used on this region, saying the US-India relations have "entered a new era". "We are transforming our relationship to reflect the principles and national interests we share." The statement says, the cooperation between the two countries has reached "an unprecedented level" and the two sides agree to set up a "defense procurement and production group" , which will be responsible for national defense cooperation such as joint military research, development and test, as well as the training of naval navigator. It is reported that the group will focus on joint production of F-16 or F-18 fighter jets, a cooperation only reserved for US allies. What should be noted is that according to the agreement, the United States will recommend to India the "Patriot III" anti-missile system to fight back short-range ballistic missiles.

Analysts say, although the agreement is just a sketch of intent, and details need further discussion and approval, it is an event marking the two sides' enhancing their military ties so its significance should not be underestimated.

Not directing against China?

The defense agreement immediately attracted high attention from world media who commented it as "historic" and "unprecedented". Some Indian media hailed the agreement as a landmark document in the history of India-US relations. Indian Express ran a front-page article on June 30 with a title "India and US New Brothers in Arms". This agreement, the article says, lifted the India-US ties, which had long been fluctuating, to a stable defense cooperative partnership. It is of special significance given the fact that the United States on the one hand presses the EU to keep arms embargo on China and urges Israel to cancel arms sales to China while on the other hand signs a wide-ranging defense agreement with India.

The agreement indicates a new step towards a strategic partnership, since the two countries have more common interests than 10 years earlier and now we can discuss joint weaponry production, a former Indian ambassador to the United States observes. Although both sides say the agreement has nothing to do with China, he says, the China factor is only too obvious. Both of them felt keenly uneasy about China's development, though neither of them mentioned it. US neo-cons have long been insisting that long-term threat is from China, while India apparently senses that China is a neighbor stronger than itself in both economic and military strength.

US draws India in step by step

Analysts say it is obvious that the United States intends to draw India into its global strategic framework. Three months ago, a high-ranking official from the Bush administration said that the United States had mapped out a plan to enhance US-India relation in an all-round way ¨C a "new step of strategic partnership", which is aimed to "help India become a world major power in the 21st century". On June 24, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns told media in New Delhi that India was an "ideal candidate" for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, implying US support. Any Indian who is concerned with international issues sensed the change in US attitude, and media commented that the recent US moves went beyond "showing good will" to the extent of "ingratiating itself with India".

India, however, remains the weakest link among the Asian allies the United States is trying to win. US-based International Herald Tribune quotes an Indian scholar that India's DNA doesn't allow it to become a subordinate ally like Japan or Britain. As a matter of fact, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao just paid a successful visit to India over two months before Rumsfeld and China and India agreed to construct a strategic cooperative partnership looking forward to peace and prosperity. In early June, after foreign ministers of China, Russia and India held talks in Vladivostok, western media even talked about the possibility of the three countries "entering into alliance". As Japanese paper Mainichi Shimbun puts it, China, Russia and India may develop into a "new polar" which has an equal say with the United States and the European Union.

India has no intention to confront with China

Washington has put many things on the table, and the key is what India wants to eat, an New Delhi-based observer says, adding that India knows the price to be paid for taking what America offers so it is both pleased and nervous. According to Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, Indian runs into two obstacles to accepting the US strategy, first, it may not want to confront with China and second, the Communist Party of India is opposed to a military alliance with the United States.

India is also suspicious of US intentions, considering that Washington is not helping India out of sincerity, but is using India for its own ends. Once India is useless, Washington can tear up this agreement filled with promises at any time. India's worries can be seen in its talks with Washington, when it repeatedly asked for "producing weapons together" instead of simply purchasing from the United States. An article on Hindustan Times holds that the agreement may constitute a turning point in the history of India-US relations, but this depends on how the "new era" called by the two sides unfold in the next decade, or whether the two sides can build up mutual trust.

India can develop cooperative ties with the United States only under the prerequisite of equal partnership and will not be interested in being ordered about by the United States in its global strategy, a Indian researcher on national defense points out. He believes that India will not damage its friendly ties with China for the sake of US strategic interests and it is all the more impossible for India to sacrifice its foreign policy of independence in exchange for the so-called "US support".

Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee also made clear the above-mentioned stance in his speech in Washington on June 27. He said that in the face of a rising Asia in the 21st century, if the United States still seeks for hegemony, Indian will not serve as its "attach¨¦". It is impossible for a single country, no matter how strong it is in economy, science and technology and army, to single-handedly shoulder the responsibility of ensuring world peace and order, he added. Mukherjee's speech showed that although Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will pay a visit to the United States, India will not seek to please Washington or agree to establish India-US strategic alliance against China, for Indian's foreign policy remains independent. Just as an Indian delegation member puts it, the country's diplomacy is very "India-centered".

This article is carried on the first page of the Global Times, July 1, 2005 and is translated by People's Daily Online

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

13 July 2005

The Hindu

America, India and the outsourcing of imperial overreach

In offering to make India a 'major world power', Washington wants a

'low cost ally' whose support in 'low-end tasks' will help free its own

military for the 'high-end' military operations central to maintaining

its power in Asia.

If there is one document everyone should read to understand the

direction relations between the United States and India have begun to

take in the past few years, it is The Indo-U.S. Military Relationship:

Expectations and Perceptions , a report commissioned by the Pentagon in

October 2002.

Written by Juli A. MacDonald of the Information Assurance Technology

Analysis Center (IATAC) , a Department of Defense-affiliated outfit,

the 131-page report was based on in-depth, off-the-record interviews

with 40 senior serving U.S. officials -- including military officers --

and around the same number of serving and retired Indian officials and

officers. The aim: to "reveal the opportunities for and impediments to

military-to-military cooperation" between the two countries.

Although the unclassified report was circulated in the upper echelons

of government in both countries two years ago, its existence was never

publicised by either side -- presumably because of the frank manner in

which U.S. officials spoke of the value of India in America's emerging

Asian strategy. Reading the report two years later, it is clear the

Pentagon did not commission the study as an academic exercise. In 2002,

U.S. officials believed the opportunities were infinite and the

impediments relatively easy to overcome. Today, some of these

"opportunities" are being realized, as the latest U.S.-India Defence

Framework agreement suggests.

Anticipating the much-hyped naval cooperation between the U.S. and

India in the aftermath of the Tsunami, the IATAC report argues that the

" U.S. military seeks a competent military partner that can take on

more responsibility for low-end operations in Asia, such as

peace-keeping operations, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance,

disaster relief and high-value cargo escort, which will allow the U.S.

military to concentrate its resource on high-end fighting missions"

(emphasis added). The Pentagon's Global Posture Review 2004 suggests

the era of permanent large-scale overseas deployment is over. Military

action of the future requires small bases, or "lily pads", and a

network of close allies with compatible "capabilities". This is where

U.S. planners see India fitting in.

The 'tethering' of China

What the Pentagon's planners want is a military alliance of the kind

the U.S. has with South Korea and Japan. The U.S. is looking ahead at

the next 50 years. Japan is a declining power and Korea an

unpredictable one. Alone in Asia, India offers the prospect of a power

whose rise can be harnessed in order to help the U.S. deal with the

strategic challenge of China. It helps that a section of the Indian

economic and political elite believes China is a threat.

So confident is Washington of the inevitability of this new alliance --

and of its utility on the China front -- that it has begun speaking of

India in the same breath as Japan and Korea. After her speech at

Tokyo's Sophia University on March 19 , U.S. Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice was asked about the challenge posed by China to the


"[As] we look to China's life", she replied, "I really do believe

the U.S.-Japan relationship, the U.S.-South Korean relationship, the

U.S.-Indian relationship, all are important in creating an environment

in which China is more likely to play a positive role than a negative

role. These alliances are not against China; they are alliances that

are devoted to a stable security and political and economic and,

indeed, values-based relationships that put China in the context of

those relationships, and a different path to development than if China

were simply untethered, simply operating without that strategic

context." (emphasis added)

The use of the word 'untethered' is not fortuitous. George F. Kennan

had just died and his intellectual legacy was weighing heavily on Dr

Rice's mind. 'To tether' means "to tie a rope or chain to an animal so

as to restrict him to a particular spot", precisely the aim Kennan

hoped to achieve by 'containment' of the Soviet Union.

In her report, Ms MacDonald noted that while the Indians she

interviewed were pre-occupied with "more immediate" challenges posed by

China, "the American interviewees are focused on the longer term

implications of the Chinese gaining a strategic position to threaten

the U.S. position in Asia". She stresses the reluctance of Indian and

U.S. officials to recommend or argue openly that the Indo-U.S. military

relationship be directed primarily against China. "A U.S. admiral

reasoned that ... [t]he U.S. and India both view China as a strategic

threat ... though we do not discuss this publicly". She quoted one

American colonel as warning against portraying India as a counter to

China in U.S. strategy: "... Such a rationale for the relationship will

make the task of selling the Indo-U.S. relationship to the Indian

public exceedingly difficult." At the same time, China is the key.

"This statement is typical", the IATAC report says:

"As the U.S. military engages India, as much as we say we do, we

cannot separate our thinking on India from our thinking on China. We

want a friend in 2020 that will be capable of assisting the U.S.

military to deal with a Chinese threat. We cannot deny that India will

create a countervailing force to China."

India as hedge

The American officials quoted in the IATAC report also said the U.S.

needs to prepare for the day its traditional relationships in Asia

weaken. A State Department official notes: "India's strategic

importance increases in the event that U.S. relationships with other

traditional allies (e.g. Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia) become

more acrimonious or politically uncomfortable for both parties; or if

access rights that the U.S. takes for granted become more

restrictive... The U.S. needs to develop alternatives in Asia. India is

the optimal choice if we can overcome the obstacles in building the


Lack of access to U.S. weapons technology is seen as the biggest

obstacle from the Indian side. "An American major general summarized

the contrasting aims: 'The Indians will laud the relationship as a

success if they obtain the technology they want from the U.S. We will

view the relationship as a success if we are able to build a

constructive military cooperation program that enables us to jointly

operate with the Indians in the future'."

But these aims turn out not to be so contrasting after all. The sale of

U.S. technology will improve the "inter-operability" of Indian and U.S.

soldiers and allow for the kind of joint 'multinational operations' the

new U.S.-India defence agreement speaks of. "U.S. military officers who

want India to be a capable partner convey a uniform message: The US

must allow the sale of US technology and equipment to India", the IATAC

report states. According to a U.S. general, "The only way to achieve

any level of inter-operability requires the U.S. Government to sell

India U.S. equipment. Not only will [this] help the two militaries

communicate and operate together, they will also enable the U.S.

military to more equally assess India's military capabilities".

The aim, of course, is not just to assess but to access Indian military

capabilities. "Access to India would enable the U.S. military 'to be

able to touch the rest of the world' and to respond rapidly to regional

crises", one U.S. Lt General told Ms MacDonald. And another senior

officer argued that the U.S. Air Force "would benefit from having

access closer to areas of instability (e.g. Central Asia, Southeast

Asia and the Persian Gulf). India's well developed infrastructure could

be useful for U.S. power projection into these areas".

Indians who feel flattered by the growing number of port calls by U.S.

warships and joint exercises at sea and in air should realize there is

a purpose behind everything. "American military officers are "candid in

their plans to eventually seek access to Indian bases and military

infrastructure", the IATAC report states. "The U.S. Navy wants a

relatively neutral territory on the opposite side of the world that can

provide ports and support for operations in the Middle East", a U.S.

officer is quoted as saying. "Over time, port visits must become a

natural event... In the same vein, the U.S. Air Force would like the

Indians to be able to grant them access to bases and landing rights

during operations, such as counter-terrorism and heavy airlift

support." "Our ultimate goal", another U.S. officer said, "is to be

able to work together with the Indians to respond to regional crises,

particularly in Africa. We (India and the U.S.) should be seen as

partners in restoring order and promoting democracy in the region".

If U.S. officials are candid about their expectations from India, they

are also aware of the need to tie India down early. A U.S. colonel told

Ms MacDonald: "The costs of building a relationship with India today

are significantly lower than the costs of facing India as a spoiler in

the future. Moreover, the costs of building a relationship with India

will likely increase over time". "Many Americans", she notes,

"advocated that 'the low cost of building a relationship today will pay

large dividends in the future' by preventing India from acting in ways

that could be counter to U.S. interests."

In the process of helping the U.S. "tether" China, India is likely to

find that it has tethered itself as well. This is the essence of the

'offer' a senior U.S. State Department official made in March this year

to "help India become a major world power". Such an offer is not only

demeaning, it is aimed at ensuring India never plays a constructive

role with China and others in developing a new, cooperative Asian

security framework -- a framework in which there is no room for outside

powers to maintain a military presence in the continent under the guise

of providing 'balance'.

If he has not already done so, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be

well advised to go through the IATAC report before setting off for

Washington on March 16. Last week, he told reporters India would never

be a supplicant or client state. He is right. India is far too big --

and its people far too proud -- to allow this to happen. But as his

government rushes into a 'partnership' with the U.S. on all fronts --

especially military -- there must be no illusions about just what it is

Washington wants.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

US intentions are not that secret ! .. im sure indians are aware what america is planin for them ...

again ... im sure Americans are also aware that Indians will not agree to this arrangement fully as it is ..

my guess is that probably both sides would be compromising on their demands from each other ... kind of; only working in areas where they agree and leaving those where they dont ...

still, both tend to gain from such an arrangement ...

india would stop short at the point where China starts feeling the heat ... indians wouldnt like to get unnecessarily involved in a potential confrontation with China ..

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

US won’t back India’s bid for UNSC

By Our Correspondent

WASHINGTON, July 16: A day before Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s scheduled arrival in the US capital for his first state visit, a senior US official said the Bush administration will not support India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council.

Briefing the media on Dr Singh’s visit, the official said the timing of the G-4 resolution on the expansion of the Security Council was wrong. The G-4 represents India, Germany, Japan and Brazil, who want to join the council as permanent members.

Indicating Washington’s desire to firmly shut the door on UNSC expansion, the official said there will be no change in the US stand.

He insisted that it was not ‘a snub’ to India because the US wanted other reforms to be taken seriously and did not want to focus on the expansion issue. [sure]

The US official said the Security Council functioned efficiently as compared to other UN bodies, implying that the US did not believed it needed to be expanded soon. This is identical to China’s position.

The official, however, assured India that the US rejection of an immediate expansion of the Security Council would not affect Washington’s desire to build a strong relationship with New Delhi. Expanding its relations with India was the Bush administration’s highest ‘foreign policy priority,’ he said.

Despite such assurances, the US refusal appears to have put a damper on the enthusiasm of the Indian lobby in Washington which believes that a permanent seat in the UNSC will help India’s efforts for recognition as a major world power. [bechare]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The following is an article about the statements made by the US State department regarding India's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.

US denies rejecting India's UNSC claim

Ela Dutt (IANS)

Washington, July 16, 2005

The State Department has tried to dispel the notion that the Bush administration is against a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council, a day after US representative Shirin Tahir-Kheli rejected the G4 demand to increase permanent seats.

News about India is creeping up in visibility here as the atmosphere heats up on the eve of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit -- the White House, State Department and the US Congress ramp up their pronouncements and journalists ramp up their questions.

Though the White House receives a head of state or of government almost daily, the Indian Prime Minister's visit has caught the imagination of some of the media.

"What we have said and what she (Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) has said is that we have a longstanding commitment to support Japan for the Security Council seat," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack responding to a question about Washington rejecting India's demand.

"And you've heard from Under Secretary Burns in his briefing here several weeks ago when he said that, you know, we support Security Council expansion to two or so seats, by two or so seats. One of those seats we have made a commitment to Japan, and we support Japanese ascending to the Security Council," McCormack said leaving the second seat open to question.

"We have also said that, as Ambassador Tahir-Kheli said on Friday, that it's -- this is not the right moment to vote on Security Council reform because we think it is not right to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead of consideration of other very important reforms, including management reform, Secretariat reform, a Human Rights Commission, establishment of a Democracy Fund agreement on a Convention Against Terrorism," McCormack clarified.

"These are all things that have a great deal of support within the UN and we think it is important to make progress on those before you start voting on expansion of the Security Council."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, McCormack contended, is coming here to meet with the President primarily. The President looks forward to hosting the Prime Minister."

Secretary Rice will be hosting a luncheon at the State, he added, but noted she had met the Prime Minister and the Indian Defence Minister not so long ago during her trip to India and in the run-up to Singh's arrival on July 17.

"We believe it is an important visit that signals the increasing depth and breadth of the US-India relationship across a variety of different topics and those have been outlined in the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP).

"It covers a wide variety of different areas, from energy to cultural exchanges to the beginnings of a military-to-military relationship. So I expect that they will be talking about all of those issues as well as things that happen to be on the mind of the Prime Minister as well. And she looks forward to those discussions."

The link for the article above is given below:,00130179.htm

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

news source is an indian source:rolleyes:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bush Not Backing India's U.N. Council Bid

By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer 54 minutes ago


President Bush said Monday that the United States and India have built their strongest relationship yet as he hosted an elaborate day of ceremony for the country's prime minister at the White House.

"India and the United States share a commitment to freedom and a belief that democracy provides the best path to a more hopeful future for all people," Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "We also believe that the spread of liberty is the best alternative to hatred and violence."

But besides all the pomp, Bush wasn't willing to fulfill one of Singh's top wishes — support for a permanent seat on the Security Council of the

United Nations. Singh said he still made his case to Bush during their Oval Office meeting.

"India has a compelling case for permanent membership on the Security Council," Singh said. "We are convinced that India can significantly contribute to U.N. decision-making and capabilities."

Considering a litany of alleged mismanagement, corruption and other failings at the world body, U.S. officials think an overhaul of U.N. operations must be under way before any reshaping or expansion of the Council can be considered. The United States, Russia, China, Britain and France now hold the only five permanent spots.

Although U.S. officials said Singh was getting a firm "no" on his request, he looked for common ground. "In our talks, the president and I were of one mind that the contemporary reality must be fully reflected in the central organs and decision-making processes of the U.N.," he said.

Pressure around the meeting was eased somewhat Sunday when the foreign ministers of populous India, Brazil, Germany and Japan said they would not seek a change in the council's makeup until the end of July while they negotiate with the 53-nation African Union.

Council membership was likely to be among few negatives to interfere with Singh's official visit with Bush, which also included a welcome ceremony and a gala dinner. Bush also told Singh that he plans to visit India.

Bush rolled out full pomp and pageantry for Singh's visit, with a bewigged fife and drum corps marching across the South Lawn during the welcome ceremony. The two leaders walked side-by-side and inspected a long line of troops in dress uniform.

Administration officials say the pomp was designed to emphasize the growing importance to the United States of India, a rising economic and military power whose newfound affinity for the United States is something Bush considers a major foreign policy success.

"Our nations believe in freedom, and our nations are confronting global terrorism," Bush said at the welcome ceremony. "As diplomatic partners, we're meeting this threat in our own nations and abroad. ... The relationship between our two nations has never been stronger, and it will grow even closer in the days and years to come."

India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a founder of the Cold War's Nonaligned Movement, which Nehru considered a "third way" beyond what he considered the imperialism of both Western capitalism and Soviet-style communism. In practice it gravitated toward the latter, which often put India severely at odds with U.S. policies.

The detente began 18 months ago with signing of the Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership accord. It laid out a path to bring the two democracies into a fully cooperative relationship in economic and military affairs, energy, the environment, space and technology and other matters. A military cooperation agreement was signed this year, and as many as 16 new cooperative arrangements are planned for the Singh visit.

For now, however, the U.N. question will be a difficult sell for the Indians.

"We believe very strongly that the larger issues of U.N. reform also have to be addressed; and if we have

U.N. Security Council reform out of phase with the larger U.N. reforms, then we will not do justice to the organization," Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice told an Indian interviewer during the weekend.

At a meeting in New York on Sunday, the foreign ministers of India, Japan, Germany and Brazil acknowledged they lacked the necessary two-thirds majority of the 191-member U.N. General Assembly for change without the backing of the African nations, which have their own proposal for reorganizing the Security Council.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

besides maybe yes to conventional nuclear energy not much to be happy about for the Indians. No permanent membership. No major arm deals. I think the Bush government did put up a big show to make alteast something out of it. If talking about terrorism and India eas om the table then with no negative remarks to Pakistan it is clear that US is not taking any side. No wonder India is now trying to make impression with attackers killed in Ayodha or the so called increase of terrorism on the LOC. Indian politicians aren't much better then the average Bollywood film. Predictable and boring.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The BBC is creaming its pants over this nuclear deal as some major breakthrough in India's 'World Power' status. All the while ignoring the slap in the face to India over the UN. Baboon Broadcasting Corporation indeed :D :rolleyes:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Regardless of the hidden motives for U.S. overtures to India, India has more to offer than Pakistan.

Currently Pakistan is benefiting because of its strategic location and assistance in war against terror. Look at our exports; it is basically agriculture, commodities and textile. Heck, despite we are still import sugar and wheal to meet domestic demands.

I am not being an apologist for India. Fact is Pakistanis need to stop making fun of existing levels of poverty, crappy infrastructure or failed big-ticket defence projects by DRDO.

If Pakistan wants to be a world class player that it should treat India as an economic threat and competitor. Mobilize it resources and expand industrial capabilities. Our engineering capabilities are meager and under utilized.

In comparison India has fully developed industrial base. Technology employed by all industries may not be on par with the west, nevertheless which has solid foundations. India has domestic conglomerates with global ambitions.

We all know India has regional and global ambitions that are a threat to Pakistan. We can not rely on military options only to counter India. We need to expand our economy, industrial capabilities.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Regardless of the hidden motives for U.S. overtures to India, India has more to offer than Pakistan.

Currently Pakistan is benefiting because of its strategic location and assistance in war against terror. Look at our exports; it is basically agriculture, commodities and textile. Heck, despite we are still import sugar and wheal to meet domestic demands.

I am not being an apologist for India. Fact is Pakistanis need to stop making fun of existing levels of poverty, crappy infrastructure or failed big-ticket defence projects by DRDO.

If Pakistan wants to be a world class player that it should treat India as an economic threat and competitor. Mobilize it resources and expand industrial capabilities. Our engineering capabilities are meager and under utilized.

In comparison India has fully developed industrial base. Technology employed by all industries may not be on par with the west, nevertheless which has solid foundations. India has domestic conglomerates with global ambitions.

We all know India has regional and global ambitions that are a threat to Pakistan. We can not rely on military options only to counter India. We need to expand our economy, industrial capabilities.


I agree with your statement. It is being predicted that the manufacturing base of the world shall be China, and the engineering and services base of the world shall be India.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

US building India as counterpoise to China

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: From the moment they took office, President George Bush and his administration were keen to do everything they could to counter the expanding Chinese military, one way being to develop a relationship with India, according to a veteran observer and commentator of South Asian affairs.

Steven R Weisman, the chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, who was the newspaper’s bureau chief in New Delhi during the 1980s made this and several other observations in an interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Weisman said, “This is something that the administration has been loath to acknowledge publicly, but it’s clearly underneath the surface.” In the last couple of years, the Pentagon has become much more alarmed over Chinese military intentions, and the Chinese acquisition of high technology that has given it an upper hand in the Taiwan Strait. The administration also felt alarmed over Europe’s selling of high-tech equipment to China.

Asked about the current India-Pakistan dialogue, Weisman said relations between the two countries have been “calmer than they have been in some time,” but “it would be foolish to think this state of affairs is permanent. Elaborating, he added, “Things are going well now, but when I talk to Indians and Pakistanis, they recognise that it would only take one bus bomb in Kashmir or New Delhi to get things off track. And the Indians, although they’re improving relations with Pakistan, adamantly insist that Pakistan has done nothing to stop the infiltration of militants or extremists - whatever you want to call them - into Kashmir to provoke militant opposition to Indian sovereignty there. So, it’s a very touchy situation that is only temporarily in a good place. Naturally, the administration is taking some credit for the peaceful state of affairs, saying they are the first administration in history that has tried to have good relations with both India and Pakistan. Well, with all due respect, it would not be possible if India and Pakistan were not themselves trying hard to have good relations.”

Asked if there was a paradox in the situation, considering that Washington sees India as a way to offset China, but India has been trying to improve its own relations with China, Weisman answered, “India is playing Kissinger-like games of making up with the longtime enemy. India and China fought a war in the early 1960s … and they still have a boundary dispute left over from that war. India accelerated a policy of improving relations with China, and when you talk to Indian officials, they are adamant, and resentful, frankly, that they are being seen in Washington as a kind of a pawn here to beat up on China among the China-bashers. So, for both India and the Americans, you don’t hear very much (public) talk about, ‘Let’s build up India as a counterweight to China,’ even though everybody knows that’s part of what’s happening.” As to how it would work strategically, since India is not interested in any confrontation with China, Weisman replied that India has its own ambitions, such as a blue water navy. India’s navy is a presence in a part of the world where China also wants a presence, which could make it a “stabilising force” in the region from Pentagon’s perspective.

About the Bush decision to sell nuclear supplies to India for non-military use, the NYT correspondent said the decision would no doubt be seen, by its critics, as just another case of the administration seeking to dismantle an international arrangement. While US law forbids such a deal, national security exemptions enable the President to override bans on selling equipment on national security grounds, as is currently the case with Pakistan. The law will have to be changed before the administration can implement the deal with India. He said it could be argued that what the administration has decided to do is just to “recognise the reality and try to make it as effective as possible for its objectives.” He also felt that while India had agreed to the separation of its military and civilian nuclear programme and place the latter open to inspection, “that’s going to take a long time, and it’s going to be very complicated, and hard to do that-and to make sure that it is being done.”

Asked if Pakistan is going to want the same deal, Weisman replied, “The Pakistanis, as of today, haven’t made clear what deal they want. But, this spring, they already got their biggest priority, and that was the F-16s that the United States agreed to sell them … I don’t know that Pakistan now wants the kind of thing that India has been given, which is help on its civilian nuclear programme. They do have reactors, and frankly, I don’t know what plans Pakistan has in the civilian sphere or what kind of outside aid it wants. But chances are if the India deal goes through, Pakistan will line up and ask for the same deal after they have a bit of a better record on non-proliferation.”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

^ If this ever becomes a reality, India's destruction is not too far away. :D

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Currently Pakistan is benefiting because of its strategic location and assistance in war against terror. Look at our exports; it is basically agriculture, commodities and textile. Heck, despite we are still import sugar and wheal to meet domestic demands.


I haven't seen any engineering or electronic products from India either in the markets. It's only Indian textiles that you see in western countries. India's performance has been more pathetic than Pakistan if we compare to what they started off with in 1947 compared to Pakistan. All the Industrial base in 1947 was in India based around Calcutta area

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

US building India as counterpoise to China

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: From the moment they took office, President George Bush and his administration were keen to do everything they could to counter the expanding Chinese military, one way being to develop a relationship with India, according to a veteran observer and commentator of South Asian affairs.

When India's defence minister Pranab Mukherjee arrives in Washington today, he will be feted as a representative of America's latest 'ally'. There will be tall talk of selling sophisticated arms such as Patriot missiles and F-18 jets (not just yet), gushy remarks about the strategic partnership the US wants to build (but does not) and other such pabulum.

But in their hearts, American officials neither trust nor care for India — our use for them is as a counterweight to China. No dual-use items and no nuclear technology — unless we checkmate China. On the one issue that won't cost US a red cent — UNSC membership — they will play games. Like the "two or so" formulation they have arrived at. If they can identify Japan as one candidate, why not the other?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0