Indo-US Relations

'India will take time to adopt its role as global player'

India, which has now emerged as a global player will take some time to adjust to its new role, a US official has said.

"India has broken out from being a regional country to be a global country. And it's going to take them time to adjust to that new role," Stephen Headley, Co-Chair of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent panel said at a Congressional hearing.

Headley was responding to a question from Florida Senator George Lemieux who at the hearing of Senate Armed Services Committee wanted to know about the roles of BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China.

"It seems that these nations want to have all the benefits of first-tier powers, but don't necessarily want to shoulder the responsibilities," Lemieux said.

"We don't see Brazil taking a strong role in dealing with Venezuela, for example. We don't see China taking a strong role in dealing with North Korea. It falls upon the United States to have the burden to shoulder in issues such as terrorism and dealing with rogue countries," he said.

Senator asked Headley: "How do you think that relationship can change? What can we do so that we are not the only nation in the world that's responsible for fighting terrorism around the world, for shouldering this immense burden that we shoulder now? And how can we get those countries more engaged?"

Headley, in response, said the four countries were different.

"Particularly with respect to China and India. We have to recognise that China is going through a period of enormously rapid change, and their government is struggling to deal with probably the fastest rate of change in the world's most populous country - fastest rate of change we've ever seen. So the role that China is playing and being asked to play is new," he said.

He observed that it was both a challenge and an opportunity and said "I think it's some sense true for India."

"We need to be both engaging them, try to work with them to understand their responsibilities and to work with us to solve global problems; at the same time, we make it clear that there are a set of international rules, and that all countries, including India and China, would be better if they played within those rules. We have to have the capabilities to enforce those rules, if necessary," Headley said.

"It is not all black or white. It is a challenge and an opportunity. We need to be engaging those two countries. We need to be present and active in Asia, not just in terms of militarily, but economically in terms of business, in terms of diplomacy.

"There are free-trade agreements being signed all the time in Asia, and we're on the sidelines. I think that the number-one point we would make is Asia is where the action is going forward, and we need to be a player, not on the sidelines," Headley said.

William Perry, another Co-Chair of the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent panel said the last administration called on China to be a responsible stakeholder.

"I think that's a pretty good term, and I think pushing that concept, not only with China but with the other three countries, is a very good idea," he said.

"The best approach I can describe to dealing with that is to continue to call these countries to be responsible stakeholders. We need their assistance in dealing with global problems," Perry said.

Why India has mixed emotions about Obama

Posted By Dan Twining Friday, August 6, 2010 - 12:24 PM Share

President Obama will visit India on a state visit in early November. I recently returned from New Delhi, and it was a trip that revealed a mix of hope and ambivalence that awaits the president's arrival.

On the positive side of the ledger, developments over the past few months have diminished India's sense that U.S. diplomacy has neglected Asia's key rising democracy after a bad stretch early in the Obama administration. Undersecretary of State Bill Burns delivered a terrific speech in June that declared America's vital interest in India's rise and Washington's desire to facilitate it -- a geopolitical vision that has been lacking since President Bush left office. Counterterrorism cooperation has intensified since the United States allowed Indian officials to interrogate captured terrorist suspect David Headley and explore his connections to Pakistani militant groups. The Obama administration has softened its line about dramatically drawing down troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, encouraging Indians and others to hope that the president will see the mission through to some minimally satisfactory conclusion.

With regard to Indians' closely watched northern neighbor, Sino-American relations appear to have stabilized after Washington's flirtation with the G2 condominium concept last year, followed by a period of military and diplomatic tension that has led to stronger U.S. pushback on Beijing's revisionist claims in maritime Asia. The U.S. administration is engaging in a concerted push to lift remaining technology sanctions on India -- a legacy of America's 30-year effort to contain Indian power when the countries were estranged by Cold War and proliferation tensions -- and to more broadly revise American export control laws in ways that catalyze technology trade and investment. The Obama administration is considering declaring its support for India's permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council -- an overdue change of American policy if it occurs. All these developments have been welcomed in New Delhi.

However, India's strategic community remains concerned about (and in some cases, alarmed by) the president's approach to Pakistan; his strategy for Afghanistan; his willingness to pursue a more robust Asia policy that raises the costs of Chinese assertiveness; the absence of American leadership on trade; and his commitment to treating India as a key power and partner in world affairs in a way consistent with Indians' own sense of their country's rising stature and capabilities.

Pakistan/Afghanistan and China are central areas of concern. Indian elites recognize that Washington has ceded to Islamabad (read Rawalpindi, headquarters of Pakistan's military establishment) a dominant role in delivering the Afghan Taliban and associated insurgent groups for an Afghan political settlement. Indians fear this will impose Pakistani suzerainty over Afghan politics in return for the creation of conditions that allow Western forces to come home. This U.S. approach, and the president's "surge and withdraw" announcement of 2009, caused many Indian officials and experts to give up hope a long time ago that Obama would ultimately leave behind an independent Afghanistan that would not threaten India by playing host to Islamic militants with wider regional and global ambitions to foment jihad.

On China, one retired Indian admiral and leading strategist told us that, in light of China's developing blue-water navy and ambitions to project maritime power far from home, "India is the only thing standing between China and the South Atlantic." Washington and New Delhi, he argued, should therefore structure their military and diplomatic relations around preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia and the world, especially if America intends to preserve the Monroe Doctrine in its hemisphere and sustain its control of the global commons. Many Indians have long taken a more hawkish view of China in light of their experience with Chinese aggression in their 1962 war, China's early development of nuclear weapons with missiles capable of targeting every Indian city, and China's arming of India's neighbors, from Pakistan to Sri Lanka to Burma, with an eye on tying India down in its subregion and limiting its ability to project influence more widely. Given China's increasingly sharp-elbowed approach not only to lesser neighbors but toward a more powerful United States, an Indo-U.S. convergence on China should be in the cards -- but Indian strategists do not judge Obama to have demonstrated the necessary resolve vis-à-vis Beijing.

The president's November trip will be a chance to lay these concerns to rest and outline an ambitious vision for Indo-U.S. relations of the kind that has been lacking in a U.S. approach since 2009 featuring a range of smaller functional initiatives -- on agriculture, education, health, etc. -- that don't add up to a strategic whole. But this isn't a one-way street. The Indian government needs to deliver too -- on legacy agreements on defense cooperation and logistics, nuclear liability, foreign investment, and other initiatives that have for too long been tied up in India's bureaucracy.

It would also be helpful if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who showed his steel by risking the downfall of his government over civil-nuclear cooperation with America in 2008, could outline an aspirational vision for U.S.-India relations that accords with the potential both sides have long identified. If this is truly to be a partnership of equals between the world's predominant power and its next democratic superpower, both New Delhi and Washington share a responsibility to propel it forward. If Obama's commitment to that process is less robust than that of his predecessors, all the more reason for India's leaders to step up theirs.

Border Bill Aims at Indian Companies

PHOENIX — Indian high-tech workers do not typically sneak into the United States through Mexico, but beefing up the Southwest border may still make it tougher for them to migrate here.A Senate bill approved Thursday night by unanimous consent would pay for more security along the Mexico border by raising fees for companies from India that operate in the United States and hire so many Indian workers that they have been criticized for violating the spirit of American immigration law.

The $600 million spending bill would send 1,500 more Border Patrol agents, customs inspectors and other law enforcement officials to the Southwest border, finance additional aerial drones to monitor remote desert regions and build two operating bases close to the border to help reduce illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

“It’s just a great package,” Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, said in a conference call with reporters on Friday. She contends that the Obama administration has made the border more secure than ever but nonetheless hears the frustration of many local politicians, especially those in her home state, Arizona, who say that immigration is out of control.

Republicans had proposed paying for the beefed-up security by tapping into stimulus money. But Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said his staff had come up with an alternative that would not hurt American workers: raising the visa application fees paid by any companies with more than 50 people in which more than half the work force has H-1B or L visas that are intended for skilled foreign workers.

Senate aides said four Indian companies would qualify for the significantly higher fees: Tata, Infosys, Wipro and Mahindra Satyam, all of which operate in the United States and are criticized as “body shops” because they provide outsourcing of Indian professionals to American companies. Large American high-tech corporations, which bring the bulk of the skilled immigrants into the United States, would not be affected since the vast majority of their work forces are made up of Americans.

India’s high-tech industry reacted angrily to the proposal, with the New Delhi-based National Association of Software and Services Companies issuing a statement saying that raising the visa fees by more than $2,000 per application would violate international trade practices and unfairly focus on Indian companies. And Peter McLaughlin, an Infosys spokesman, said, “It is unfortunate that this tax is being levied on a discriminatory basis when the need is to open markets to make companies more competitive in the global marketplace.”

But senators complained that the companies could remedy the situation by hiring more Americans. “I’m thrilled that these companies are complaining about having to hire more Americans,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “That is the whipped cream and cherry on top of this sundae.”

The House may take up the bill next week.

U.S. Senator: Infosys is a ‘Chop Shop’

While discussing an immigration bill on the U.S. Senate floor Thursday, New York Democrat Charles Schumer likened Indian tech giant Infosys Technologies to a “chop shop.”

We’re pretty sure that was a slip. After all, the term “chop shop” refers to shady places of business where people dismantle stolen cars and sell off their parts. Surely he isn’t comparing the legal outsourcing of America’s jobs to the illegal selling of America’s brake pads and V-8 engines?

It is likely the senator was going for “body shop,” also a derogatory term, but one that describes firms who shuffle low-cost tech engineers around the globe.

Sen. Schumer’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for a comment or clarification on his remarks.

Mr. Schumer was speaking before the Senate passed a $600 million border security bill that is paid for by new fees on skilled work visas. The roughly 200% increase over current visa fees would apply only to companies who already have more than half their U.S. workforce on H1-B and L-1 visas.

The upshot: Indian tech companies like Infosys and Wipro would be hit, but not American ones. The bill is awaiting action in the U.S. House.

Here’s exactly what Mr. Schumer had to say:

“The emergency border funds will be paid for by assessing fees on foreign companies known as chop shops that outsource good, high-paying American technology jobs to lower wage, temporary immigrant workers from other countries. These are companies such as Infosys. But it will not affect the high-tech companies such as Intel or Microsoft that play by the rules and recruit workers in America.”

Infosys didn’t have a response to Mr. Schumer’s remarks specifically. But in response to the bill’s passage, the company said it is aggressively hiring in the U.S. and it believes the legislation is unfairly targeting Indian companies, albeit indirectly.

“It is unfortunate that this tax is being levied on a discriminatory basis when the need is to open markets to make companies more competitive in the global market place,” Infosys said in a statement Friday.

The battle to re-engine the Indian Air Force’s 128 Jaguar fighter jets is in full throttle, with Britain’s Rolls Royce and US’ Honeywell International taking the war back home right inside the rarefied offices of South Block.

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent comments in Bangalore on the “export of terror” by Pakistan have enormously pleased the Indian strategic establishment, but the fact is that India is already gearing up for the November visit of US President Barack Obama and is keenly aware that there is nothing like a defence deal to sweeten the mood.

For example, the Jaguar engine deal is worth an estimated $670 million, a lucrative sum in the recession-hit economies of the US and the UK and definitely welcome in an era of rising unemployment, emptying treasuries and never-ending body bags from the AfPak war front.

On the other hand, as India prepares to overhaul, upgrade and buy new defence equipment for its armed forces — by 2022, military equipment worth $100 billion is likely to be purchased, besides another $9.7 billion on homeland security by 2016 — and the world’s top defence companies make a beeline for New Delhi’s door, it is aware that defence cooperation is becoming its chief instrument in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives. That is why, as India and the US prepare for Obama’s four-day India visit, Washington DC is pushing New Delhi to recognise that “defence cooperation is the central pillar” in the expanding bilateral partnership, the president of the US-India Business Council Ron Somers said.

According to Somers, deeper defence collaboration would not only generate thousands of jobs in India and the US (because of India’s offset policy), but would also signal that the US is no longer an “unreliable supplier of defence goods as well as open up technological collaboration” in every sector.

Defence Minister A K Antony is visiting Washington DC towards the end of September, and even though India typically shies away from concluding defence deals during political visits, many Americans feel it’s high time India compensates the US for the “heavy-lifting” it performed by pushing through the Indo-US civil nuclear deal from 2005-2008.

Typically, however, the government has followed the middle path so far, awarding the Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer deal to UK’s BAE Systems, besides an additional $350 million to Rolls Royce for engines for the Hawk — both for the IAF as well as for the Navy.

“For a middle power like Britain, that is good money,” said an Indian official on the condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, over the last year, India has also bought nearly $6 billion worth of defence goods from the US, including six C-130 J “Super” Hercules transport planes (with the option to sell six more), 10 C-17 Globemaster-III strategic lift aircraft worth $3 billion (with the option to sell 10 more) as well as eight Boeing maritime surveillance P-8I aircraft worth $2.1 billion.

But since the jewel in the crown of the Indian defence market — a 126-fighter jet order for the IAF’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) worth $11 billion — is not going to be decided by the time Obama visits India, the US government is hoping that India will also favour Honeywell’s F125IN thrust class engine over Rolls Royce’s Adour MK 821engine for its Jaguar fleet.

“An enhanced defence relationship is of huge symbolic importance,” one US official said, adding, “it sends a powerful political message on the marriage of doctrine and strategy.”

Indian officials admitted that although Russia continued to supply 70 per cent of the IAF’s hardware, the MMRCA deal was significant not only because of the large number of new fighter jets IAF would buy, but because entire platforms worth many more billions would have to be purchased so as to sustain the proper use and maintenance of the jets. But the US officials also admitted that the heightened interest in selling sensitive defence equipment to India was not limited to “transactional gains”, but was also impelled by shifting strategic considerations in other parts of Asia.

The officials were not willing to name either Pakistan — despite the exposes by Wikileaks of Pakistan’s “double-game” on the AfPak warfront — or China’s recent belligerence in the Yellow Sea as serious causes of concern, but it’s clear that for the first time since the Obama administration came to power, the US is both confused and bewildered about the manner in which it should confront China’s rising power or Pakistan’s blunt blackmail.

Beijing’s warning that the US aircraft carrier, USS George Washington, should not exercise in the Yellow Sea has gone down very badly in Washington, and is being perceived a direct challenge to the security and safety of its treaty ally, South Korea. In recent days, a compromise seems to have been struck, with Korea stating it would conduct exercises on its own.

On AfPak, conversations between India and the US are now dominated by considerable frankness, but the Sino-US relationship remains a far more complex issue. US officials, pointing to China’s incredible rise, say they would like India’s help in maintaining Asia’s security and stability, especially to keep the sea-lanes open for navigation.

It is not clear whether Antony will sign three key pacts the US has been pushing for, like the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communication Inter-Operability Agreement (CISMOA) or the Basic Change and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial cooperation.

The US is keen that at least the CISMOA and the BECA be inked soon, arguing it will only pave the way for removing key Indian entities from the US export control list or that the transfer of high-tech avionics to India may not be possible.

But India remains unfazed, arguing that Indian entities like DRDO, ISRO and BEL should be removed on their own merit and that the “time has not yet come” for pacts like the LSA which envisage US and Indian militaries providing logistics support, refuelling and berthing facilities for each other’s warships and aircraft.

http://www.bharatrakshak.com/NEWS/ne...p?newsid=13268

AI seeks $1bn compensation from Boeing

Taking a harsh line against American aircraft major Boeing for its failure in delivering B-787 Dreamliner, national carrier Air India has slapped a notice on the world's leading aircraft manufacturer demanding a compensation of a whopping $1 billion.

AI had placed an order for 27 Dreamliners and Boeing was supposed to start the delivery from September 2008. However, Boeing now says that first of those aircraft can be delivered only around March 2011.

Miffed by the excessive delay, the airline management -- backed by the government -- invoked the penalty clause in its contract and sent a notice to Boeing. The compensation has been worked out based on computing of direct cost per day of delay and increased cost of operations using 25 old aircraft.

However the move has not gone down well with Washington. The US government is now reportedly pressurising the Indian government to take a softer line.

U.S. Senate Targets India Outsourcers

Posted by: Bruce Einhorn on August 8, 2010

How unpopular are Indian outsourcing companies from India in the U.S.? They can manage to unite squabbling Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. With the GOP filibustering most of the time, it’s news when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues manage to get 60 votes to pass anything at all. Getting all 100 Senators to vote unanimously on a bill is near miraculous. On Thursday, though, the Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by New York’s Chuck Schumer to increase visa fees on companies that send workers to the U.S. if more than half of their America-based employees use work visas. In other words, Indian IT outsourcing companies. (Companies like Microsoft and Google that bring people to the U.S. on these work visas, too, don’t have to worry since those employees are just a tiny percentage of their U.S. workforce.) The extra money will pay for additional security measures on the U.S.-Mexico border.

In case the message wasn’t clear enough, senators made a point of singling out Indian IT outsourcers. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill said the bill would hit “a handful of foreign-controlled companies that operate in the United States such as Wipro, Tata, Infosys and Satyam,” Indian wire service PTI reported. PTI also quoted Schumer turning up the heat on the Indians. “The emergency border funds will be paid for by assessing fees on foreign companies known as chop shops that outsource good, high-paying American technology jobs to lower wage, temporary immigrant workers from other countries,” Schumer said during debate on the Senate floor. “These are companies such as Infosys.”

Chop shops! I’ve followed the debate about outsourcing for a while, and this is the first time I’ve heard of a top lawmaker likening India’s blue-chip IT services companies to crooks who specialize in taking apart stolen cars. Nasscom, the Indian IT industry’s lobbying group, came out with a statement after the Senate vote pointing out that less that 12 percent of H-1B visas. “But U.S. compnanies, which use the bulk of these visas, would remain unaffected by the legislation,” Nasscom President Som Mittal said in the statement. “This is simply unfair to foreign companies.” For now, the new tax won’t hurt Infosys and other Indian companies too much; Bloomberg News quotes Kaufman Bros. analyst Karl Keirstead saying the new fees will be “relatively innocuous” for a company like Infosys, which earned $1.3 billion in the most recent fiscal year. With the U.S. unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, though, Infosys and other Indian IT companies should expect more over-the-top attacks from American politicians from both sides of the aisle. They can’t agree on much, but they all know that there’s little downside to beating up on Bangalore.

India, U.S. review defence cooperation

Sandeep Dikshit
U.S. team meets Defence Ministry counterparts

“Want to get some progress ahead of Obama's visit”

NEW DELHI: Ahead of Defence Minister A.K. Antony's visit to the United States next month, New Delhi and Washington exchanged notes on fostering greater defence cooperation through more equipment sales, greater joint exercises, frequent high-level exchanges and the possibility of inking three military agreements.

Led by U.S. Under Secretary of Defence on Policy Michèle Flournoy, a team from the Pentagon interacted with their Defence Ministry counterparts to prepare for a meeting of the Defence Policy Group, the joint committee headed by top civilian bureaucrats in the two Defence Ministries that charts bilateral defence cooperation.

“We also want to get some progress ahead of [U.S. President] Barack Obama's visit [in November],” Ms. Flournoy told journalists here after meeting Mr. Antony, National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar.

Maintaining that the U.S. viewed India as a “natural partner,” the Pentagon official indicated Washington's wish list vis-à-vis New Delhi in the area of defence. It includes purchasing more American-origin defence equipment, “realistic” joint exercises and stepped up visits by Indian armed forces officers.

Ms. Flournoy described the three military agreements, which the U.S. has been pursuing with India, as “foundational” in nature. This is the same terminology she used while interacting with journalists in the U.S. last month. But during this interaction, she provided more details on why the U.S. wants India to ink the agreements despite having been cold shouldered on this count for nearly two years.

The three “foundational agreements” being offered have been inked with many close partners, and this has enabled the Pentagon to offer cutting edge defence technology. They also allow the U.S. to “share” the next higher level of technology. “It is not a requirement [for closer cooperation]. It is a choice of the government of India,” she clarified.

“Of course, economics is involved,” Ms. Flournoy said, while pointing out that the agreements and weapon purchases from the U.S. would fulfil its strategic aim of ensuring inter-operability in future and investing in a long term relationship.

In the area of joint exercises, the U.S. feels there has been “tremendous progress” in the number of exercises, but the need is to make them “meaningful” so that they are “reflective of the real world situation.” Asked to explain what that meant, Ms. Flournoy said the exercises must prepare both sides to jointly undertake counter-piracy operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

“We also have to respond to maritime security and freedom of navigation and against those contesting the accepted rules of the world. We will have to work to prevent that. We have to be prepared in terms of capability.”

In the area of visits, the Pentagon says although “several hundred” Indian military officers have visited the U.S. for courses or interaction, it would like to “broaden the range.” Asked whether the U.S. was monitoring weapon sales to Pakistan in order not to upset the military balance with India, Ms. Flournoy pointed out that since terrorism came home to Pakistan, there had been a shift in political will, which was reflected in the military operations in South Waziristan. U.S. weapon sales to Pakistan, she said, were focused on equipment efficiency to support the current counter-insurgency operations.

“We have heard and are mindful of Indian concerns as we take steps to support the equipment of Pakistani forces for counter-terrorism purposes.”

U.S. visa law discriminatory, says India

Sujay Mehdudia
NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday conveyed its concern to the United States over the proposed legislation to increase the fee for H1B and L type visas.

Legislation S-3271 on Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for U.S. Border Security includes a provision for increasing the H1B and L visa fee.

In a strong letter to Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said it was estimated that the Bill would have an additional cost implication of over $200 million annually and would adversely impact the competitiveness and commercial interests of Indian companies sending professionals to the U.S. to undertake projects for American customers.

“Though the need of the U.S. government to strengthen its border security is understandable,” it was inexplicable why Indian companies should bear the cost of the highly discriminatory law? He pointed out that the Indian software industry was already deeply burdened in the absence of a totalisation agreement, requiring it to pay more than $1billion every year to the U.S. government in the form of social security, with no benefit or prospect of refund.

India, US close to social security pact

In the absence of the totalization agreement, expatriate workers from each country forfeit their contributions if they do not meet the criteria
Sahil Makkar and Surabhi Agarwal


New Delhi: India and the US are close to clinching a long-pending agreement that will link the social security systems of both countries and thereby allow workers from each country to draw the benefits from their contributions.

In the absence of the totalization agreement, which is likely to be inked during President Barack Obama’s visit later this year, expatriate workers from each country forfeit their contributions if they do not meet the criteria.

“Earlier there was a deadlock on the agreement. The US was not very receptive about it. But now both the countries have agreed to share data by September giving details of Indian and US workers in the respective countries and their contributions,” said a senior government official who did not want to be named.

The ministry of overseas affairs, ministry of commerce and the department of information technology (IT) along with the US-India Information and Communication Technology working group, who have been pursuing the matter, have held meetings in the past one month to clear the decks before Obama’s visit.

Also Read | India protests against US Bill raising visa fees for IT workers

To take the talks further, a delegation from the US is visiting India later this year to finalize the agreement. “Before this, officials from both countries will try and negotiate the agreement via video conferencing in October. We expect that everything will be in place before Obama’s visit,” the official added.

A senior home ministry official, who was privy to the developments but did not want to be identified, said, “We are providing our inputs to the overseas affairs ministry.”


“The Indo-US working group is pursuing the matter as the issue impacts the IT and ITeS (IT-enabled services) professionals in particular,” said a senior official in the department of IT.
The US state department could not be reached immediately. A person familiar with the developments maintained that the agreement was a “deliverable”, which both sides were hoping to ink during the President’s visit.

IT lobby group Nasscom has been lobbying the Prime Minister’s Office for inclusion of the totalization agreement in the US President’s agenda for discussions. Indian professionals, particularly from the software sector, who work on short-term visas, lose out in the absence of a deal.

According to Nasscom estimates, in absence of a totalization agreement, Indian IT firms and professionals pay in excess of $1 billion (Rs4,630 crore) every year to the US in the form of social security, with no benefit or refund. To qualify for a social security refund, expatriates have to continuously work in the US for 40 quarters, or 10 years.

“A significant portion of the salary of professionals is lost due to the lack of such an agreement,” said Ameet Nivsarkar, vice-president of Nasscom, which has been pushing for the agreement to be signed for many years now.

However, the agreement will not help in claiming refunds retrospectively.

According to the fresh recommendations, the Indian government has asked for exemptions for those classes of workers employed on the L-1 visa, which deals with inter-company transfers. For others, such as those on H-1B visas, the government has asked for aggregation of contribution in India and the US. In such a case, an Indian citizen who has already contributed towards the US social security benefits will be eligible to the benefits in proportion to the number of years for which he/she has made the contribution.

The government has also recommended portability of benefits, which means that benefits should be provided to eligible people irrespective of their country of residence.

India has had three rounds of discussions with Washington so far—in 2007, 2008 and the latest in May. The country has totalization agreements with nine countries—Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Luxembourg.

Though talks on the issue began in 1994, not much progress could be made. The bone of contention was the way India has structured its social security structure, which the US felt was different from its own and so could not be linked. “Major headway has been made on the issue now as the US, after debating on it for years, has now recognized that India’s social security scheme is similar to theirs,” said the official.

[email protected]

Elizabeth Roche also contributed to this story

India-US: After the euphoria, skepticism

The first unofficial US-India Strategic Dialogue organised by The Brookings Institution and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce in Washington, DC threw up some hard questions. In the first of a five-part series, Aziz Haniffa covers the entire gamut of the high-profile event.

Notwithstanding the lofty declarations and euphoria of the first US-India [ Images ] Strategic Dialogue chaired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] and Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna [ Images ] — including President Barack Obama's [ Images ] visit to the State Department to announce his visit to India in November — the unofficial dialogue that followed threw up plenty of skepticism, particularly among the Indian participants.

Doubts about the Obama administration's commitment to a strategic partnership with India were raised by the likes of Lalit Mansingh, former Indian ambassador to the US and former Indian foreign secretary, and Kanwal Sibal, former Indian foreign secretary and former deputy chief of mission in Washington, DC, in two separate panels titled 'American and Indian Strategic Interests in Asia' and 'Where is the US-India Strategic Relationship Headed in the Coming Year?'

The conference was held under the joint aegis of The Brookings Institution and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Martin Indyk, vice president and director, foreign policy, at Brookings, said this dialogue between Indian and American policy experts would take place on an annual basis alternating between Washington and New Delhi [ Images ].

Mansingh said, "While official discussions are held in sanitized surroundings and they come out with politically correct statements, we have no such restraint here. We are a group of scholars, entrepreneurs and former diplomats. But we don't represent our governments, and therefore we can speak frankly."

And, speak frankly he did.

"What one has heard from the American leadership (at the strategic dialogue) is music to my ears at least and I'm sure music to many Indians," he said, but added that there was no denying that there was a perception deficit since the advent of the Obama administration. The question often asked in India, he said, is: "Does America have a coherent view of what's going to happen in Pakistan, or is it lurching from crisis to crisis and finding ad hoc solutions?"

President Obama, Mansigh said, kicked off his presidency "by being very critical of the Pakistani military, alleging that the military had taken the Bush administration for a ride, the Pakistani military will be made accountable for the kind of defense supplies it has been receiving, and the Pakistani military will have to accept the leadership of the democratic government. (But) what we are seeing today is the steady reversal of that projected point of view…"

"We know Pakistan as the source of terrorism in India, but the US also knows Pakistan as a source of terrorism throughout the world," he said. "So, why is there that we still have a gap — that when it comes to Pakistan, America talks about or assumes it is dealing with its terrorists, and when it comes to us we have to deal with our terrorists? In our view, there is no such thing as separate terrorist groups like Al Qaeda [ Images ] and Taliban [ Images ] and Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Tayiba [ Images ]. They're part of the same franchise. They work together. It is a corporate enterprise, and I think India and the US have to look at it as one entity, not as separate entities."

In Afghanistan, he said, while India "has been patted on the back for a wonderful development aid program… America has to recognize that Afghanistan is rightfully important for India's security interests, and to exclude India from any kind of political solution, to give precedence to the sensitivities of the Pakistani army, is to not want India to be there… Because quite clearly if the (US) withdrawal takes place, it is the neighbors of Afghanistan who will have to deal with the emerging situation in Afghanistan."

With regard to Beijing [ Images ], Mansingh said, "Like it or not, the Bush administration had a clear-cut view of China. There was a global vision, and there was a certain rule for China. I think the present dialogue is missing out on China… China is intruding into our (Indian) security space in a big way, and it's an odd coincidence that China's behavior towards India has been at its worst in the last 65-odd years, coinciding with the first year of the Obama administration."

On Iran, Mansingh said, "My message to our American friends is don't push us too hard. Iran is in our neighborhood. Iran is an important supplier of hydrocarbons for India, which we desperately need. And don't ask us to join you in blanket sanctions against Iran nor commerce nor supplies. We need gas and oil from Iran. It is vital for our economy."

And, he complained that there is no big ticket item with regard to India in the Obama administration unlike the nuclear deal in the Bush administration. "Why can't the US say 'Yes, we think India is worthy of becoming a member of the (United Nations) Security Council'?"

Sibal was even more candid.


"If the hardcore issues are being ignored," he said, "and the accent is largely on soft-core issues, or the accent is on issues on which India and the US can cooperate multilaterally, or at the global level, then the question would — can — legitimately be asked that are these multilateral, global issues a part of a bilateral strategic partnership between India and the US?"

The hardcore issues, Sibal said, are China's proliferation activities — especially in Pakistan — and Afghanistan.

He said on the so-called "five pillars, under which there are so many areas we have identified as areas in which we can deepen our relationship, the question that comes to my mind is whether these areas have been conceived in a strategic context, or these are simply the areas that present themselves, objectively, as India's needs and the capacity of the US to fulfill those needs."

Sibal also asked, "Can we say realistically that this issue of trust, or the element of distrust — whichever way you put it — has been fully overcome by the India-US nuclear deal?"

The trust deficit, he said, "Still remains. And, this is fueled by the fact that… large segments of the Indian public opinion still are not persuaded that the US has the right policy in terms of India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan."

Prashanth Parameswaran of the Project 2049 Institute challenged Sibal, saying that he disagreed with his notion that the US seeks India to look beyond the neighborhood as a ploy to eschew New Delhi to neglect its regional issues.

"Within India itself," Parameswaran said, "there seems to be debate between whether to take a more narrow, or a regional approach — sort of focusing on regional problems in its neighborhood like Pakistan, Afghanistan — or willing to take a more global approach to certain issues. Or whether to take a more reactive approach to foreign policy or a more proactive approach…. It's striking how little global strategic thinking is taking place in India. And, I don't necessarily just mean in the government of India, I mean amongst the think tanks, I mean amongst the sort of broader cognoscenti, India's foreign policy is still very much in a reactive phase, and not in a proactive phase."

Karl F Inderfurth, former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration and currently professor of international relations at George Washington University, recalled that he was in UK recently at a conference with the title, 'Is India Ready for Superpower Status.'

He said he had "mentioned that to (Indian) Ambassador (to the US Meera) Shankar and she said, 'Oh, no, no, no, no! We are a developing country. We will talk about that later.'"

Few months back -
What US expects now??

The United States on Wednesday said India is not going to join the NPT "for quite some time", but wanted New Delhi to work with the Obama administration to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

A day after the US underlined its determination to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime, a top US official said Washington would not push New Delhi to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) until the American Senate ratifies it.

Appreciating India's principled opposition to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) treaty, Robert J Einhorn, Special US Advisor Non Proliferation and Arms Control, said that New Delhi is unlikely to join the pact.

"India's not going to join the NPT for quite some time, if at all. We understand that. But we want India to work with us in strengthening the nonproliferation regime," Einhorn told media persons in Washington.

"US and India have increasingly become partners in this area of dealing with the global proliferation threat, with the threat of nuclear terrorism," Einhorn said.

"We talk about these issues on a bilateral and on a multilateral basis with India quite frequently," he said in response to a question.

Einhorn said the administration "appreciates and understands" India's attitude toward NPT.

"It's a long-standing attitude, it's a position of principle. What's especially important to us is that India behave in a responsible manner. And it has behaved in a responsible manner," he said.

Einhorn made it clear that the White House would not push India to sign CTBT until the Senate ratifies it.

"Once we have ratified, we'll be in discussions with India about how to bring this important treaty into force," he underlined.

In terms of the CTBT, the administration will press hard for Senate ratification of the treaty, and "then we will work with other countries to bring it into force".

"Bringing it into force means that the US and India and Pakistan and China and a number of other countries must ratify it. And we will be in discussions with India (once it is ratified by the Senate)," Einhorn said.

Einhorn said countries that have not joined the NPT, and countries like China, which have joined the NPT, "we call on all countries, whether they've chosen to join the NPT or not, to work together to limit, to prevent, the threat of further nuclear proliferation".

James N Miller, Principal Deputy Secretary of Defence Policy, underlined the need to ensure that the regime does not unravel.

"Whether you're an NPT party or not, there's a common interest in ensuring that this regime does not unravel," he said.

Responding to a question, Miller said the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under considerable threat these days, especially because of the non-compliance of North Korea and Iran.

"At the NPT review conference coming up in May, it's important that we work together on a strong consensus to strengthen this regime. And that requires not just countries that have signed the treaty, but countries that haven't signed the treaty," he underlined.

Source

if Obama utters a single word about CTBT or FMCT....i think his visit will definitely be BANGLORED.....:emot15:

Lol...

India has already made it clear that it will not sign NPT or CTBT or FMCT. Even if US proposes now, New Delhi will directly ask US to sign CTBT first, also make China sign it then we will table it in parliament. GOI has made this clear much earlier.

If still US has issues, I expect lot of showdown in & after November.... :happy_2:

ecember 29th, 2009

Pitching for civil nuclear cooperation with Tokyo, India Tuesday made it clear to Japan that it will consider its options on signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) only after the US and China show the way by ratifying the pact.

Tokyo, however, kept the door open for civil nuclear business and high-tech trade, saying it will be “an important agenda for the future” in India-Japan dialogue.

Civil nuclear cooperation was among key issues Prime Minister Manmohan Singh discussed with his Japanese counterpart Yukio Hatoyama in wide-ranging talks.

They vowed to push for an early conclusion of an economic partnership agreement to scale up trade and investment and cooperate on a range of global issues, including the UN reforms, climate change and nuclear disarmament.

The two leaders signed an ambitious joint declaration entitled ‘New Stage of India-Japan Strategic and Global Partnership’, which has an action plan on advancing security and counter-terror cooperation as its centrepiece.

The action plan, based on a declaration signed in October last year, unveils a new “2-plus-2″ dialogue framework at the subcabinet/senior official level involving the external affairs and defence ministries.

The two sides also decided to ease visa rules within a year to spur trade and tourism and agreed to conclude Comprehensive Economic Partnership Pact (CEPA) by next year, an important move that can multiply the current $13 billion bilateral trade manifold.

But the prospect of closer security cooperation did not translate into a breakthrough in the area of civil nuclear cooperation due to differences over the CTBT, which New Delhi regards as as unfair and discriminatory.

“I expressed the hope that along with the US and China, India will sign and ratify the (CTBT) treaty,” Hatoyama told reporters at a joint press conference.

“In response, Prime Minister Singh said should the US and China ratify the CTBT, a new situation will emerge,” he said.

“I believe he has stated it as a matter of fact. We firmly have to engage in these endeavours,” he added.

Hatoyama wrapped up his three-day visit to India Tuesday, his first stand-alone visit to an Asian country since his party’s surprise victory in the August elections, that ended a five-decade-plus run of the Liberal Democratic Party.

The US and China have signed the CTBT, but has not ratified it due to sharp divisions among the political establishment over its impact on their deterrence. US President Barack Obama has declared the ratification of the CTBT as an important policy goal of his administration and put nuclear disarmament back on global agenda.

Underlining India’s impeccable record in nuclear non-proliferation and the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver for resuming global nuclear trade with New Delhi last year, Manmohan Singh made a pitch for initiating atomic trade with Japan.

“We had fairly extensive discussions in civil nuclear energy. I explained to the prime minister the circumstances under which India took the nuclear weapon route,” Manmohan Singh said while alluding to India’s 1998 nuclear tests that led Japan and many NSG countries to impose sanctions on India.

Manmohan Singh, however, assured that India will stick to its “unilateral and voluntary moratorium on explosive nuclear testing” and pledged to cooperate in the area of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

“That’s a commitment India will honour,” he added.

Japan’s response was non-committal. “We discussed civil nuclear cooperation. This would become a very important agenda in the future,” was all Hatoyama would say. His remarks indicated that Japan, a pacifist nation that swears by a hawkish non-proliferation agenda, may consider exporting atomic materials to India sometime in future.

The two prime ministers shared the view that nuclear energy can play an important role as a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy in meeting the rising global energy demands, said the joint statement.

Urging India to join efforts for a speedy conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), Hatoyama struck an optimistic note on spurring high-technology trade, saying that there is enormous scope in this area. He, however, added that India needs to assure Japan that the Japanese high-tech imports will not be diverted for weapons or to third countries.

Source