Indo-US Relations

[Yusuf]

At the end of the day, its interests which matter. US may go hoo haa over Indias relations with Iran, but when its left with nothing to show for, for a deal it pushed, it will gloss over. It has a habit of glossing over all such things, be it proliferation of nuke tech, or giving Pakistan arms.
US did not mind selling arms to Iran (Iran Contra affair, Iran?Contra affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

[youngindian]

Clinton Vows to Usher New Era in US-India Relations

By Ravi Khanna
Washington
01 July 2009

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she wants to take U.S.-Indian relations to a higher level. The secretary's comments come as Clinton prepares to visit New Delhi next month. There is concern in India that President Obama's administration is focusing its South Asia policy too heavily on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistani jets streak overhead in the continuing battle to uproot Taliban and al Qaida. The fight against militants, here in South Waziristan, continues at the urging of the new U.S. administration.

But with this battle now a top priority in U.S.-South Asian policy, some political analysts in India have expressed concern their country is of diminished importance.

Weeks before her first visit to New Delhi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the relationship at the U.S. India Business Council. She vowed to usher in a new era.

"We see India as one of a few key partners worldwide who will help us shape the 21st century," Clinton said. "We want India to succeed as an anchor for regional and global security, and we want India to succeed so that the world's two largest democracies can work together as strong partners."

The secretary of state said she is focused on taking the bi-lateral relationship to a higher level - compared to the administrations of former President Bush and former President Clinton.

"Four platforms of cooperation - global security, human development, economic activity, science and technology - can support us in launching this third phase of the US-India relationship," she states.

But in New Delhi, some Indian media analysts say they fear President Obama's focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan will mean less attention on its partnership with India, particularly on global security matters.

Former U.S. ambassador to New Delhi, Richard Celeste does not agree.

"Because we [the U.S.] and India share so much of a common threat of terrorism that emanates from those two countries in that region, we are going to find ourselves working closer and closer together there even when we have some political differences," Celeste said.

On June 29, India's ambassador to Washington, Meera Shankar, said that India shares the U.S. objectives in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But she told a gathering, India is concerned about the nature of the U.S. military aid to Pakistan. Kashmir remains tense as the two nation's militaries face each other across the Line of Control.

"Security assistance, we feel, should be focused more specifically on building counter-insurgency capabilities rather than conventional defense," Shankar said.

And the ambassador urges the Obama administration to give India priority on its own merits.

"The secretary of state is due to visit India in July and we hope that visit will provide the basis for both countries announcing a road map to take the India-U.S. relations to the next level," Shankar added.

Many analysts in Washington agree with Secretary Clinton that trade and business relationships have developed so fast, that that the two governments must catch up.

VOA News - Clinton Vows to Usher New Era in US-India Relations

 

[Yusuf]

The key reason why India ranks lower in the policy profile of the Barack Obama administration than it did under President George W Bush is that America's Asia policy is no longer guided by an overarching geopolitical framework. In fact, after five months in office, Obama's approach on Asia lacks a distinct strategic imprint and thus appears fragmented. His administration may have a policy approach towards each major Asian country and issue, but still lacks a strategy on how to build an enduring power equilibrium in Asia.

The result is that Washington is again looking at India primarily through the Pakistan prism. That translates into a US focus on India-Pakistan engagement, revived attention on the Kashmir issue and counter insurgency in the Af-Pak region, including implications for US homeland security. For instance, not content with making Islamabad the largest recipient of US aid in the world, Obama wants victim India to come to the aid of terror-exporting Pakistan, including by offering new "peace" talks and redeploying troops, even if it means more terrorist infiltration.

In a recent Asia-policy speech in Tokyo to a small group, of which this writer was a member, US deputy secretary of state James Steinberg did not mention India even in passing. Whether one agreed or differed with Bush's foreign policy, at least its Asia component was driven by a larger geopolitical blueprint. By contrast, the best that can be said about Obama's Asia policy is that it seeks to nurture key bilateral relationships with China at the core of Washington's present courtship and establish, where possible, trilateral relationships.

The upshot is that the Obama team has just unveiled a new trilateral security framework in Asia involving the US, China and Japan. While announcing this initiative, Washington failed to acknowledge another trilateral the one involving the US, India and Japan. It is as if that trilateral has fallen out of favour with the new US administration, just as the broader US-Australia-India-Japan "Quadrilateral Initiative" founded on the concept of democratic peace ran aground after the late-2007 election of Kevin Rudd as the Australian prime minister.

At a time when Asia is in transition, with the spectre of power disequilibrium looming large, it has become imperative to invest in institution-building to help underpin long-term stability. After all, Asia is not only becoming the pivot of global geopolitical change, but also Asian challenges are playing into international strategic challenges. But the Obama administration is fixated on the very country whose rapidly accumulating power and muscle-flexing threaten Asian stability.

This is not to decry deeper US engagement with China when dependence on Beijing to bankroll American debt has only grown. From being allies of convenience in the second half of the Cold War, the US and China now have emerged as partners tied by such close interdependence that economic historians Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick have coined the term, 'Chimerica' a fusion like the less-convincing 'Chindia'. An article in China's Liaowang magazine describes the relationship as one of "complex interdependence" in which America and China "compete and consult" with each other.

But China's expanding naval role and maritime claims threaten to collide with US interests, including Washington's traditional emphasis on the freedom of the seas. US-China economic ties also would stay uneasy: America saves too little and borrows too much from China, while China sells too much to the US and buys too little. Yet, such is its indulgence towards China that Washington holds Moscow to higher standards than Beijing on human rights and other issues, even though it is China that is likely to mount a credible challenge to America's global pre-eminence.

The new US-China-Japan trilateral re-emphasises Washington's focus on China as the key player to engage on Asian issues. Slated to begin modestly with dialogue on non-traditional security issues before moving on to hard security matters, the latest trilateral already is being billed as the centrepiece of Obama's Asia policy. Such is its wider significance that it is touted as offering a new framework for deliberations on North Korea to compensate for the eroding utility of the present six-party mechanism.

Despite its China-centric Asia policy, the Obama team, however, has not thought of a US-China-India trilateral, even as it currently explores a US-China-South Korea trilateral. That is because Washington now is looking at India not through the Asian geopolitical prism but the regional, or Af-Pak, lens a reality unlikely to be changed by secretary of state Hillary Clinton's stop in New Delhi six months after she paid obeisance in Beijing. While re-hyphenating India with Pakistan and outsourcing its North Korea and Burma policies to Beijing, the US wants China to expand its geopolitical role through greater involvement even in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The point is that India's role will not diminish in Asia just because the Obama administration fails to appreciate its larger strategic importance.

TOI Edit

 

[Ray]

Obama is trying to bring the US credibility on the international scene, which was an all time low consequent to Bush’s unilateral moves that was apparently not in consonance with the UN and the international community’s desires.

Both Bush and Obama cannot be blamed since they, in the own wisdom, were/ are working towards US interests.

Obama’s main concern is bringing troops back home since that is a matter close to the average American’s heart. Iraq is showing signs that it can rule itself without US assistance and plans are on to bring back the boys. However, unless the Afghanistan imbroglio is solved, he cannot do so in its totality. Pakistan, the only route to Afghanistan, thus cannot be abandoned and instead has to be pampered and humoured!

The reason why India is low on the agenda is that India is a stable country, eager to improve its economy and hence less problematic in handling the security issues that the US may get embroiled in. From the US standpoint, so long as India can have a major presence in the Indian Ocean and without confronting the Chinese keep the Chinese in check, it serves the US purpose and to this end, the US and the West assists with the various naval exercises in conjunction with the Indian Navy. The area where the US is concerned is the Indo Pak equation. It is for US’ self interest that she is arm twisting India on Kashmir and dialogue and other inane matter, so that Pakistan and its Army is in a position to apply itself in NWFP and remove the influence of Taliban so that the ISAF can apply itself to the Afghani Taliban without being harassed by the Taliban elements in Pakistan.

Bush on the other hand had a vision of US not allowing any grass to grow under its feet having secured a foothold in the Middle East, Afghanistan and squeezing Russia from all sides. He also ensured that the OPEC cartel was weakened with the sweet oil of Iraq in his pocket and the threat of the Euro becoming the instrument of purchase removed. He also ensured that the largest untapped hydrocarbon resources of CAR was put into the pocket of the US oil cartel and opened up routes that skirted Russia! On the other hand, he humoured China to sustain the US on cheap Chinese goods and bankroll US debts and yet, to keep China in check, propped up India!

The US is unpredictable and she always has her interest supreme and has no qualms to discard allies like bromo paper. Pakistan has learnt it the hard way. One shouldn’t be surprised that once Obama stabilises the US image around the world as a ‘responsible and caring’ nation, a low keyed and benign Bush policy may come into place.

India takes things too much for granted. By pus*syfooting, it presents itself as a pliable and a weak nation. If it does not assert itself politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily, why should anyone take cognisance that India has any role to play?

It is time that India takes a hard stand with China and Pakistan and some sabre rattling would not be out of place, while sweet talking alongside. A tough stand on Arunachal and some aggressive infrastructure building there would be a step in the right direction, and likewise opposite Aksai Chin and apart from agitating the issue in Tibet and Xinjiang. Pakistan should be told in no uncertain terms that export of terrorism will not be tolerated that India is capable of tit for tat in Balochistan, Sind and Northern Areas.

India should encourage EU nations and Russia for investments and defence purchases instead of the US and throw a few bread crumbs along the way for the US to pretend to keep the balance. It will send the message and the Indian defence needs is big money!! It will also spread dissensions in the US Europe relationship wherein it would indicate to the US that India is no pushover!

China has slowly made inroads into the US and the US cannot survive without China. That is the irony. If the US allows China to grow merely on their greed impulse, then the US will suffer.

India thus has to tread carefully and follow the submariners motto – Run Silent, Run Deep!!

US must be humoured, but not taken too seriously!

 

[thakur_ritesh]

great analysis that ray sir. at a time when most of us were made to believe that the us has started recognising india at a global level, it was quite clearly nothing more than they pushing their own interests through us. if anything it is only india which will have to find its rightful place on its own and wake up to the fact that none helps others with out pushing their own interests. it might be a rude wake up call for some but a much timely one for we had started taking things too much for granteed, i believe obama was the best thing to happen to us since he made us realise what exactly the us is made up of and good he broke the honeymoon that got started with bush administration, but are our policy makers wide awake to this fact?

 

[Payeng]

Uneasy Ties

After a feel-good period under the Bush administration, relations between India and the United States are headed for an uneasy phase. Addressing the 34th anniversary of the US-India Business Council in Washington DC on June 16, US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke about taking the bilateral relationship to the next 3.0 level (while level 1.0 referred to the relationship under the Clinton administration after India’s 1998 nuclear tests, level 2.0 denoted the period under the Bush administration). What she did not say is that given the US’ global geo-political and geo-economic compulsions, the 3.0 level will be disquieting for India as compared with the previous level. During the 2.0 level, US-China relations were strained, New Delhi and Islamabad were genuinely de-hyphenated, and Washington had declared its commitment to support India become a major power; New Delhi had (erroneously) concluded that the US wanted to build India as the bulwark against China in Asia. Therefore, while the US consistently spoke of the bilateral 123 Nuclear Agreement as a victory for global non-proliferation, it did not object to New Delhi’s domestic pronouncements that the Agreement was meant solely to meet India’s growing energy needs as a major power. This position will change under the 3.0 level. On the one hand, US’ relationship with China has been elevated to a global partnership, called ‘G-2’ by Clinton; on the other hand, the US will ask India for some tough contribution on non-proliferation, terrorism and issues concerning Pakistan and Afghanistan.
India’s position on these issues will be better formed if two recent US actions are considered closely. Within days of assuming office, Clinton’s first overseas visit was to Asia including Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and China, while the Middle East was demoted to her second tour. Japan and South Korea are US’ strategic allies. Indonesia is high on the US’ radar as it has the largest Muslim population in the world, and President Obama spent his growing years there. In China, Clinton elevated the bilateral relationship to a global partnership, and asked Beijing to help stabilise the Asia-Pacific region. China is required to temper Pakistan’s support to terrorism as it has more clout with Islamabad than Washington can hope to have. Beijing’s closeness with all Indian neighbours including Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar has not gone unnoticed by the US. The fast growing Chinese Navy (PLAN) impelled Clinton to formalise a bilateral military mechanism with Beijing. (The PLAN has already spoken of a larger role in the India Ocean with the US Pacific Command, undermining the Indian Navy). The message for India is that unless it does not think strategically (political will to construct a vision backed by a doable long term perspective plan for demonstrable overall national power to include military power), it will, without saying so, be equated with Pakistan for stability in South Asia.
The other US action that requires a hard look is the recent meetings (in June) of the US undersecretary of state for political affairs, William Burns with the Indian Union home minister, P. Chidambaram in preparation for Clinton’s visit. Not satisfied with their Indian interlocutors in the external affairs ministry and the PMO, Burns brief was to get first hand views from Chidambaram as well. Two inferences can be drawn by this. The US does not rule out more Pakistan-supported terrorism on India outside Jammu and Kashmir, and given its own compulsions, it cannot ensure that the Pakistan Army-ISI combine completely stop terrorism against India.

Indo-US Nuclear Agreement
The Indo-US nuclear agreement (123 Agreement) has been signed, and so has the Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). The latter means that India has notified its civilian and military reactors separation plan (worked out under US duress) in a phased manner to the IAEA, and has agreed to an intrusive and India-specific verification regime in perpetuity with the IAEA. India’s case is that the Agreement concerns the energy deficit faced by it. The country will need 125 billion watts of electricity by 2050, which is not possible without nuclear energy. According to New Delhi, the US Hyde Act is not binding on the US President as most of its clauses are merely advisory; thus when the Hyde Act mentions the Non-Proliferation Treaty or mentions that India’s Iran policy should be aligned with US’ thinking, India need not worry about it. The 123 Agreement mentions that India can use the nuclear material not supplied under the Agreement as it wants, and is free to build additional indigenous nuclear reactors for strategic purposes (produce fissile material), should it want. The 123 Agreement also signals the lifting of the ban on Indian companies to buy US’ dual-use technologies. Given the Obama administration’s obsession with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Indian scientists have started suggesting that signing the CTBT (once the US Senate ratifies it) will not be a big deal. The reasoning being that without testing the bomb in the atmosphere (India cannot as it has signed the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty), the assurance that it will work in battlefield conditions is in any case low. China, after 23 atmospheric and 22 underground tests, is unlikely to test further, and Pakistan would do it only if India does it again. Given this, the CTBT will merely formalise the declared unilateral moratorium on testing. The big advantage of 123 Agreement, according to the Indian officials, is that India is now free to trade in nuclear materials, technology and fuel with Nuclear Suppliers Group members (read, Russia and France) as an equal partner. While believing all the above, New Delhi is now waiting for Clinton’s arrival to finalise the reprocessing agreement.

The newly-appointed US under-secretary of state for arms control, Ellen Tauscher has recently told the US Senate that negotiations on the reprocessing agreement would start before August 2. Considering that India had requested the US for this within weeks of the Obama administration taking office, Tauscher is following the text of the Agreement. According to Article 6 (III) of the 123 Agreement: ‘India will establish a new national reprocessing facility dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards and the Parties (US and India) will agree on arrangements and procedures under which such reprocessing or other alteration in form or content will take place in this new facility. Consultations on arrangements and procedures will begin within six months of a request by either Party and will be concluded within one year.’ What if this does not happen and Clinton places hard pre-conditions?

FORCE - A Complete News Magazine on National Security - Defence Magazine

Note: The link might change in the due course of time.

 

[Payeng]

Hillary Clinton To Arrive In India On Friday

(RTTNews) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will arrive in India Friday on a five-day visit to carry forward the momentum of India-U.S. ties, built deftly during former President George Bush's presidency, reports say.

Clinton will arrive in Mumbai on July 17 and proceed to New Delhi on July 19, state department spokesman Ian Kelly said. In Mumbai, Clinton will meet with a "broad cross section of Indian society" and pay tributes to the victims of the 26/11 attacks.

Kelly said Clinton will hold talks in New Delhi with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, the leaders of the opposition parties, entrepreneurs, scientists and youth before she leaves for Thailand on July 21 for the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Kelly said during her visit, Clinton would discuss with the top Indian leadership the steps to initiate the process of taking the India-U.S. relationship to a new level, which she fondly calls 3.0. With Krishna, she would "discuss the structure and elements of an enhanced U.S.-India strategic partnership," he said.

"This partnership will enable us to advance solutions to the defining challenges of the 21st century and to enhance global prosperity and stability," said Kelly, who also would be traveling with the Secretary of State.

During the visit the two countries are expected to sign an end-user monitoring agreement that will aid high-end defense sales to India. U.S. companies are competing for a pie of the $30 billion India is expected to spend on military procurement in the next five years.

Also, Clinton will press India for progress on the nuclear energy deal concluded during former President George Bush's presidency. Talks on a reprocessing agreement with the U.S. are likely to start at the end of the month, after her visit. A technology safeguards agreement on space launches is also in the works.

This is Clinton's first overseas trip after she injured her right elbow last month, hours after she addressed a meeting of the U.S. India Business Council.

by RTT Staff Writer

RTTNews - Breaking News, financial breaking News, Positive EPS Surprises, Stock research ....

 

[venom]

India Gets Access To U.S. Defense Tech

[mod]It is forbidden to post anything from Strategy page[/mod]

 

[RPK]

Ties with India undergoing `seismic changes`, says US

Washington: The US on Wednesday said its relationship with India was undergoing "seismic changes" and will get a major boost during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit in November.

Washington also asked Pakistan to prosecute those responsible for the Mumbai terror attacks and stop infiltration of militants into India to rebuild confidence with New Delhi.


The bilateral trade between the two countries, which currently languishes at USD 2.1 billion, help a huge potential of deepening their relationship, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robert O. Blake said at Johns Hopkins University here.

Describing the India-American relationship as undergoing "seismic changes", Blake said: "Our bilateral dialogue is less and less about resolving old legacy issues that divided us such as non-proliferation, and more and more about seizing new opportunities, both bilateral and multilateral."

He said the US was committed to deepening its relationship with India on five pillars - strategic cooperation; collaboration in science, technology and health; energy and climate change; education and trade and agriculture.

Blake said the strategic partnership between the two countries got a major boost during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to India in July.

During her trip, Clinton also launched new strategic dialogue with India.

The agreement on End-Use Monitoring (EUM) language for military sales contracts will boost US military sales to India and deepen military cooperation between the two countries, Blake said.

The US exported arms worth $3.1 billion to India in 2008.

The proposal to set up two nuclear reactor parks by US companies in India will further boost civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries, he said.

"The relationship will get a further boost this fall when President Obama welcomes Prime Minister Singh November 24 for the first official state visit of the Obama presidency," Blake added.

He said there were currently over 90,000 Indian students in the US and "we welcome more Indian students".

Blake said American educational institutions would like to do more joint work in India to benefit those who cannot come to the US for higher education.

The top US official also said the two countries will expand the CEO Forum to bring in more businesspeople to deepen their business ties.

 

[RPK]

No huge deliverables during Manmohan visit: US

India should not expect "huge deliverables" during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the US in November but should look to strengthening the "multifaceted partnership" between the two countries, a top American official said Tuesday.

"I don't see huge deliverables," Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for South and Southeast Asia Robert Scher said about the Nov 24-26 visit while pointing to the "incredibly strong multi-faceted partnership" between the two countries.

"We share common approaches. We might not be comfortable in some areas but at least we can talk," Scher, who is on his second visit to India after assuming office in January, said at a select media briefing here.

The reference was to two contentious agreements the US wants India to sign but which New Delhi is resisting.

The first of these, Communications Information Security Memorandum of Agreement, CISMOA in technical jargon, will enable the two militaries to communicate on a common frequency.


The other, the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), will enable the two militaries to provide logistical help to each other in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year.

India and the US had, however, struck a deal on the End User Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) during the visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this year. This was despite the fact that the Indian armed forces found it restrictive as it would give US inspectors access to hardware purchased from America.

Scher will be back here in November for a meeting of the India-US Defence Policy Group ahead of Manmohan Singh's Washington visit, the first by a foreign head of state or government after President Barack Obama assumed office in January.

However, it is highly unlikely that the two countries will agree to the text of the CISMOA and LSA before the prime minister's visit.

The differences apart, Scher emphasised that the two countries can "work together" and "have the ability to talk to each other".

 

[natarajan]

July 22, 2009: The U.S. and India have signed an agreement that makes all the American laws meant to punish nations that, like India, build nuclear weapons, no longer apply to India. The U.S. will provide India with nuclear energy technology, and India will be able to purchase high tech U.S. weapons (which "rogue nuclear nations" like India are not supposed to have access to.) This treaty recognizes the fact that India needed nukes to control Chinese expansionism, and that Pakistan had also developed nukes by the late 1990s. India has actually developed nuclear weapons technology by the 1970s, but was discreet about it, did not build an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and generally kept quiet about nukes. India wants access to U.S. high tech military equipment, as another counter to China.

Procurement: India Gets Access To U.S. Defense Tech

this website is always against india ,see it term india as rogue nation(level of illiteracy can be seen clearly here) i think we should avoid posting posts from strategy site as many forums are doing it,mods can throw light on this issue

 

[Sridhar]

this website is always against india ,see it term india as rogue nation(level of illiteracy can be seen clearly here) i think we should avoid posting posts from strategy site as many forums are doing it,mods can throw light on this issue

[mod]

As per our quality policy , these websites contents are forbidden and will be handled as applicable. Users are requested not to post from these sites.

1. daily.pk
2. paktribune
3. brasstacks
4. owlstree.blogspot.com
5. debka
6. strategypage
7. ahmedquraishi
8. pakistan ka khuda hafiz
9. ***********
10. forum.pakistanidefence.com
11. asiandefence.blogspot.com
12. pakdef.info
13. sakaal times[/mod]

 

[RPK]

Indo-US Ties : India will remain a very important partner for the US

Washington: Stating that Indo-US strategic ties have improved in the last eight years, a top US military leader said Wednesday that India would remain a very important partner of the United States in the region.

"Ties are much stronger there and that relationship has definitely improved in the last eight years," Commander of the US Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy Keating said here at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

"I am convinced that India is and will remain a very important partner of ours in a critical part of the world for all of us," Keating said.


"They have committed to us their desire to increase military-to-military dialogue, quantity and quality of training exercises and to consider personnel exchanges on a more robust, vigorous basis than we currently enjoy," Keating said.

Recollecting his first visit to India in the mid-80s alongwith Admiral William Crowe, Admiral Keating said the discussions he had at that time were not entirely fulfilling or productive.

"The engagement opportunities were almost marginal, and not much came of the visit," he said.

But things are different now, he said. "They are developing a naval capability that's significant."

"They are currently undergoing a fighter fly-off. Many in the room are probably aware of this. The F-18 of the United States just returned. The F-16 is down there," he said.

"We will admit to a little bias. We prefer they buy American. It's a particular platform. You know, just as long as they buy American, that's fine with us. They're buying some P-8s and other United States military equipment, and that is all very encouraging to us," he said.

The US Pacific Command chief said the signature success of the Bush administration's foreign policy in Asia was its rapprochement with India.

 

[ppgj]

US has always placed india at the wrong end of the stick throughout the history of relations whether it is tech regime,nuclear related, pressure tactics on terror, disputed territories or the wars india fought. with regional powers challenging its hegemony, its own two front wars, problems with the muslim world and being in economic mess needs to build friends around. republicans have been better off vis-a-vis democrats though most of indians residing in the US have historically sided democrats. democrats are also more dogmatic. though they may be, just may be genuine this time around india needs to be guarded by its past and take one step at a time keeping its own national interest in mind just as US does.

 

[RPK]

fullstory

'US for greater strategic cooperation with India'

Mumbai, Sept 17 (PTI) Having formalised the civil nuclear deal, the US is looking at higher level of strategic engagement with India.

"We have made great progress on the civilian nuclear deal. There are three or four issues left to complete...," US Ambassador Timothy J Roemer told reporters.

"Now, there is an opportunity to move from one important area to four-five important strategic areas. These areas involve defence and strategic cooperation, besides cooperation in trade and investment, science and technology and education," he said.

The US envoy also said cooperation could be extended to fields like women's empowerment, agriculture, environment protection and energy security.

On Home Minister P Chidambaram's recent visit to the US, he said it was "very successful".

 

[arya]

hi

usa is like a guy who creat a big problem when he try to slove small problem

we can see to fight soviet russia they create oshama and taliban and all we know what happened in 9/11

now we can see to fight Taliban and osama they provide nuclear power to wrong hands pakistan

as we all see in news DR KHAN and his act now iran and other country also getting nuclear power

so what is it mean just think and usa must think about this problem

it is the time to stop policy for pakistan

jai hind

 

[BLACK_COBRA]

Obama to honor India with his first state dinner

WASHINGTON: And the first state dinner of President Barack Obama’s administration goes to ... India. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is coming to America for a state visit Nov. 24, just before Thanksgiving. Such visits include an elaborate arrival ceremony on the White House South Lawn, one-on-one time with the president and, in the evening, a state dinner.

It is a plum presidential nod of recognition for the world’s largest democracy and most stable US ally in a hostile corner of the world, AP reports.

But why India first? It was just four years ago that President George W. Bush and Singh raised their glasses and toasted the US-India relationship at the start of a July 2005 state dinner.

Indian officials, however, have watched warily since then as the United States has become more engaged with its archrival, Pakistan, focusing on greater military cooperation in dealing with extremists there and in neighboring Afghanistan.

Honoring Singh with what is considered one of the grandest and most glamorous of White House affairs 10 months into Obama’s presidency may allay some of those misgivings, along with perceptions that Pakistan has surpassed India as America’s best friend in South Asia.

It also may be Obama’s way of closing the loop with all the major US allies as his freshman year in office draws to a fast close.

Obama’s first-year international itinerary has taken him to the major European power centers of England, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. He has toured the Middle East and is scheduled to visit China and possibly other Asian countries in November, before Singh visits.

The president has even scheduled a day trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, this week — he will spend more time in the air than on the ground — in a bid to personally boost his adopted hometown’s chances of bringing the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hand-delivered the state-visit invitation from Obama during her July trip to India.

Singh, re-elected to a second term this year, and Obama met on the sidelines of a London economic summit in April, and discussed cooperating on the economic downturn, climate change and counterterror. Obama later called him a ‘very wise and decent man.’

After years of mutual wariness during the Cold War, US-Indian relations are at a high point, thanks partly to the Bush administration’s push to allow American civilian nuclear trade with India. The Obama administration has used that accord as a foundation for improving ties and hopes of cooperation on the president’s priority issues, such as climate change and countering terror.

‘We are very committed to this relationship,’ Clinton said of India when questioned about deepening US relations with Pakistan.

But a trip to India so far has escaped the sights of the president’s travel planners.
That’s where the dinner comes in. A state dinner technically is for a ‘head of state,’ and Singh is not. India’s head of state is Pratibha Patil, in the largely symbolic role of president. But there is precedent for having state dinners for nonheads of state.

Obama’s first one will be the talk of the town, perhaps second only to his inauguration and the parties that followed in terms of celebrity star power and got-to-be-there fever.

A ton of planning is involved, from creating the invitation itself to compiling a guest list. Meals, desserts and wines are tasted until the right pairings are found. Flowers must be chosen and arranged just so, along with the seating, place settings and entertainment.

Responsibility for the planning falls to first lady Michelle Obama and her staff, and people will be waiting to see what twists she and her social secretary, Desiree Rogers, will put on one of the White House’s most staid traditions.

Early state dinner rumblings after Obama took office were about opening the events up to ‘real people.’

Inquiring minds also want to know what other changes may be in store. Will they eat in the State Dining Room or shift chairs to the larger East Room? Will dinner courses be prepared with vegetables pulled from Mrs. Obama’s popular South Lawn garden? Would they consider putting their well-dressed guests on boats headed down the Potomac River to Mount Vernon? John F. Kennedy did that for his first state dinner a just few months into his term, in May 1961, for the president of Tunisia. Or how about dinner and black-tie inside a big tent in the Rose Garden? Bill Clinton did that for his first such dinner a year and a half into his presidency, in June 1994, for the Japanese emperor. Bush held his first dinner eight months in. It was for Mexico, less than a week before the terror attacks of September 2001.

DAWN.COM | World | Obama to honor India with his first state dinner

 

[Martian]

"this website is always against india ,see it term india as rogue nation(level of illiteracy can be seen clearly here) i think we should avoid posting posts from strategy site as many forums are doing it,mods can throw light on this issue"

Strategy Page is an US-centric website. They basically think that the US is the best (which is basically true) and look down on other countries, which is unfortunate. I wouldn't take them too seriously. They do have some nice military photos.

 

[RPK]

VOA News - India-US Military Relations Growing Rapidly

For decades, India mostly depended on, first, the Soviet Union and then Russia for its military supplies. But as the Cold War ended and India's relations with the United States began improving during Bill Clinton's presidency, New Delhi gradually increased its military cooperation with Washington. Both New Delhi and Washington have said their relationship is not aimed against India's arch-rival Pakistan. Today, besides holding joint military exercises with the U.S. military, India has also been buying U.S. armaments worth billions of dollars.


Airborne Early Warning Air Craft, Hawkeye E-2D
The latest India-U.S. defense deal is the sale of this Airborne Early Warning Air Craft, Hawkeye E-2D, developed by American arms manufacturer, Northrop Grumman.

Woolf Gross, the corporate director at the company, says the reconnaissance plane has yet to be introduced in the U.S. Navy. Its sale to India, he says, is a symbol of how close India/U.S. military relations are.

"So they [the Indians] could have advanced Hawkeyes in India about the same time that the U.S. Navy becomes fully operational with the same aircraft," he explained.

During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to India in July, the two countries agreed on the terms of such high technology sales to India.


Meera Shankar
India's Ambassador to Washington, Meera Shankar is optimistic about future cooperation.

"Our militaries once unfamiliar with each other now hold regular dialog and joint exercises in the air and on land and sea. We coordinate anti-piracy efforts and have worked together on humanitarian missions. Our defense trade was negligible a decade ago. We placed orders worth $3.5 billion last year and it could grow even more in the future," Shankar said.

Since joint exercises between the two countries are expected to grow, it is better for India to buy equipment that is compatible with the U.S. military, says Walter Andersen at Johns Hopkins University. He says India imports most of its oil and gas and other merchandise by sea, and India is in favor of holding more joint naval exercises.

"And there is real and present danger from growing threats of piracy both on the eastern and western ends of the sea lanes coming out of the Strait of Hormuz carrying oil and gas. And also on the Horn of Africa as well as the Somalia coast where there have been real problems," Andersen said.

In the wake of last year's Mumbai terror attacks, Andersen says India is also keen to get help from the U.S. on how to combat terrorism. India blamed the attacks on a Pakistan based militant group known as Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The group is still intact and determined to repeat the Mumbai terror attacks, says Michael Leiter who heads the Counter-terrorism Center in Washington."I think it is worth noting that in Pakistan, Lashkar-e- Taiba, an al-Qaida ally, continues to pose a threat to a variety of interests in South Asia. The group continues to plan attacks on India that could have major geo-political consequences for the U.S. fight against terrorism," Leiter said.

The Mumbai terror attacks were a "wake up" call for India, says Woolf Gross at Northrop Grumman. He says as India shores up security on its coasts, it will also be a large market for U.S. anti-terrorism equipment.


Woolf Gross
"Speed boats to patrol the coasts in very short range and larger ships further out on the sea constituting a better and broader-based patrol capability as well as operation centers that are geared to share information and provide information back and forth," Gross said.

Military analysts say the ongoing military cooperation between India and the United States is bound to grow as India plans to spend billions of dollars for modernizing it defense capabilities. India, they say, is preparing for short term threats from Pakistan and long-term deterrence against China.

 

[ppgj]

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/comment_for-obama-india-isn-t-special_1297826

For Obama, India isn't special
by Arati R Jerath

Much is being made of US president Barack Obama's decision to host prime minister Manmohan Singh as his first state guest. But here's a reality check: by the time Manmohan Singh touches down in Washington on November 24, Obama will have met a galaxy of world leaders including Pakistani president AsifAli Zardari and Chinese president Hu Jintao.
The symbolic value of being the guest of honour at Barack and Michelle Obama's first state banquet in the White House cannot hide the changes that are increasingly evident in Washington's India policy under a Democrat-led administration. Gone is the star billing that India enjoyed with former president George Bush. Instead, as Obama reorders American priorities in an attempt to undo Bush's unpopular legacy, New Delhi seems to be slowly slipping off his radar.

"We are a very tiny blip for Obama," says former national security advisor Brajesh Mishra. "My feeling is that we are back to the days of the first term of the Clinton administration when India hardly mattered to the Americans."

Worse, all the dreaded pinpricks from the Clinton era threaten to reappear to bedevil the relationship. Analysts believe that pressure on both the Kashmir and nuclear issues will return as Obama firms up his foreign policy agenda. "The nuclear issue will be particularly troublesome for us with all those non-proliferation ayatollahs back in Washington," saysTP Sreenivasan, former Indian ambassador to Vienna and the International Atomic Energy Agency. "Although both India and the US have the same goal of disarmament, Obama's route is through treaties that are not acceptable to us, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Control Treaty."



It would be simplistic to dismiss the apparent drift in Indo-US relations as an inevitable consequence of a switchover from a Republican administration to a Democrat one. Most analysts feel that part of the problem lies with the Manmohan Singh government, which seems to be out of ideas on ways of engaging the Obama administration.

For instance, India has virtually slammed the door on the US president's special envoy for Af-Pak, Richard Holbrooke, by refusing to schedule appointments for him in New Delhi for the past two months. "There seems to be a problem of chemistry with Holbrooke," says former Indian ambassador to the US Lalit Mansingh. "He is known to be abrasive and is not an easy man to get on with. But why do we object if he wants to come here and brief us on his talks in Afghanistan and Pakistan?"

The sense of confusion has been exacerbated by glaring personality differences between the principals themselves. As Mansingh explains, "Bush was effusive and had an emotional approach to policy-making. He made it easy for us. Obama is more cerebral and has the capacity to pursue different ideas at the same time. We need to engage his mind by tossing ideas at him instead of being prickly and seeking reassurance all the time."

Manmohan Singh's upcoming trip to Washington presents him with an opportunity to not just put the stuttering relationship back on track, but to breathe new life into it. While the strategic depth that Bush envisaged for Indo-US ties may not fit in with Obama's vision for this region, there is plenty to do on other fronts. "I believe the Indo-US joint statement presents us with a common minimum programme by listing out areas for cooperation like agriculture, education, the promotion of democracy," says Mansingh.

The difficulty is that policymakers in New Delhi seem to be unsure of what they want and how to get it. Says Rahul Roy-Chaudhary, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, "The world is changing rapidly. We have to raise our game and build our leverages so that we can move beyond the parapet of South Asia."