Indo-US Relations

How is obama in regards to indian policies?

  • good

    Votes: 15 11.6%
  • bad

    Votes: 60 46.5%
  • need more time

    Votes: 54 41.9%

  • Total voters
    129
Status
Not open for further replies.

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
A flurry of visits in run-up to Obama’s India trip

February 1st, 2010 - 1:39 pm ICT by IANS -


By Arun Kumar
Washington, Feb 1 (IANS) A flurry of visits, reflecting the growing level of Indo-US bilateral engagement since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s November visit, is on the cards in the run-up to President Barack Obama’s key visit to India.

No dates have been finalised for the Obama visit later this year, but a time frame could well be firmed up when Manmohan Singh is back in Washington in April to attend the Global Nuclear Security Summit to be hosted by the White House April 12 and 13.

There is some speculation that Obama may well visit India in June during the summer school break as he plans to bring along his daughters Malia and Sasha too. But the Delhi heat during June may be a deterrent factor.

The prime minister’s April visit will be his third trip to the US in seven months. He was in Pittsburgh in September for a summit of the Group of Twenty (G20) countries hosted by Obama. He came again in November for Obama administration’s first State visit, considered a signal honour for India.

The Washington summit is the result of a decision by the Group of Eight (G8) countries at their summit in L’Aquila, Italy, in July 2009, to endorse Obama’s ambitious initiative in Prague three months earlier to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

The key objective is to deal with nuclear terrorism and launch an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials within four years.

Another aim is to break up black markets like the one run by notorious Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and detect and intercept materials in transit and use financial tools to disrupt illicit trade in nuclear materials.

Before Manmohan Singh comes calling, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma will visit Washington in March to take forward the agenda of deepening the economic partnership between the two countries.

The India-US CEOs’ Forum co-chaired by Ratan Tata, chairman, Tata Sons Limited and David Cote, CEO, Honeywell Inc too would be meeting then.

The prime minister’s visit will be followed by Pranab Mukherjee’s first visit as finance minister. His trip for the April 24-25 Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group will also provide an opportunity for bilateral discussions.

The India-US strategic dialogue will begin in May. The high-level forum designed to further strengthen a relationship that has dramatically improved in recent years was established during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s three-day trip to India last July.

The annual sessions to be co-chaired by Clinton and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna are intended to inspire broad partnerships beyond the government level.

Also on the cards is a visit to India by Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen James Jones, to meet his new counterpart Shivshankar Menon, a former foreign secretary who played a key role in taking forward the India-US civil nuclear deal.

Defence Minister A.K. Antony may not be returning US Defence Secretary Robert Gates visit to India soon, and official level exchanges are expected to follow up on the Gates’ trip.



More at : A flurry of visits in run-up to Obama’s India trip

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...bamas-india-trip_100312855.html#ixzz0eKkI2kQl
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
one thing i would like to say our relation with usa should be like china-usa relation.going too close to uncle will make u its poodle.and uncle is famous for using its poodles like condoms and then ditching them.like they r doing with japan and UK.like they regularly do with pak or they did with iraq.or iran etc....histrory is fuul of examples of countries who were close to usa were later ditched by the same.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
US arms supply to Pak shocks India

Pentagon’s decision to supply sophisticated arms to Islamabad has come as a shock to New Delhi which now seeks Washington’s assurance to ensure that these arms will not be used against India.

As a part of US assistance to counter al-Qaida and Taliban, Pentagon reportedly has admitted supplying laser-guided ammunition, 12 surveillance drones and 18 latest model F-16 fighters. Islamabad will also receive equipment capable of converting 1,000 traditional munitions into “smart bombs” that can strike the targets with precision.

The move has prompted Defence Minister A K Antony to come out in the open. Citing India’s bitter experience of how Islamabad had used such aid against India in the past, Antony stated Washington should ensure that the latest tranche of military aid is used only for the purpose of countering al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists and not against India.

Expressing concerns over the reported US decision to supply a whole array of sophisticated laser guided bomb kits, surveillance drones and late-model F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, the defence minister said India has bitter past experiences where US arms supplied to Pakistan were used against India.

While the drones and fighter jet deals were known for some time, it is the supply of a large quantity of laser-guided ammunition, which caused the maximum worry.

Last Sunday in Pokhran, Indian Air Force demonstrated how these precision ammunition could be used in day, dusk and night for maximum destruction. The fire power demonstration was witnessed by 28 defence attaches including the US. Defence ministry officials said Antony’s expression of concerns on the basis of past experience is India’s official position, which may also be conveyed to the USA through the diplomatic channel.
India lobbied hard to convince the US for not selling such sophisticated arms to Pakistan.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
US Arms Sales are propping up Pakistan as a Regional Challenger

The American ambassador in Islamabad has said that the US Defence Department is considering the sale of 12 unarmed drones to Pakistan to encourage it to cooperate in the war on terror. It is not beyond Pakistan’s technological capability to arm these UAVs with air-to-ground missiles for use in conventional conflict.

A few months ago, Air Chief Marshal Rao Quamar Suleman, Chief of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF), had accepted the first F-16 Block 52 aircraft on behalf of his nation at the Lockheed Martin facility at Fort Worth, Texas. The remaining aircraft will be delivered in 2010. The total order, worth US$5.1 billion, is for 12 F-16Cs and six F-16Ds. When this transfer is completed, it will raise the total number of F-16s in service with the PAF to 54. The Pakistan Air Force received its first F-16, in the Block 15 F-16A/B configuration, in 1982.

Earlier, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency had notified Congress of a Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan of 115 M109A5 155mm self-propelled howitzers as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised by Pakistan, could be as high as $56 million.

This is not the first time that the US has offered major arms packages to Pakistan, nor will it be the last. The United States had co-opted Pakistan as a frontline state in its fight against communism during the Cold War and armed it with Patton tanks, F-86 Sabre Jets and F-104 Starfighters, among other weapons and equipment. Despite strong US assurances, all of these were used against India. US-Pakistan cooperation was expanded further when the former Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. In the 1980s, the CIA gave Pakistan huge quantities of weapons for the Afghan mujahideen. These included shoulder-fired Stinger surface-to-air missiles, some of which were recovered by the Indian Army from Pakistan’s terrorist mercenaries in Kashmir. However, as soon as the last Soviet tank left Afghan soil, the United States dropped Pakistan like a hot potato and slapped sanctions on it.

Post-September 11, the United States not only ignored Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation but also its emergence as the new hub of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. It also tolerated General Musharraf’s dictatorial regime because it suited US national interests in the war against terrorism. The US designation of Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) in March 2004 had irritated Indian policy planners because Indo-US relations had just begun to improve. The “next steps in strategic partnership” (NSSP) had been announced only in January 2004 and India was looking forward to a comprehensive engagement with the United States. The Indo-US strategic partnership is now on a firm footing, but developments such as the sale of major conventional arms to Pakistan run the risk of damaging the growing relationship.

The sale of conventional arms to Pakistan ostensibly to fight terrorism has been criticised even in the United States. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report has questioned the sale: "It (the F-16 Block 52) incorporates advanced weapons and avionics for air-to-air combat that appear unnecessary for counterinsurgency operations. Less expensive and less sophisticated aircraft such as attack helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, and combat search and rescue aircraft would appear to have greater utility in combating insurgents and other non-state actors than supersonic fighter aircraft." It is another matter that Pakistan has been actually using fighter aircraft to strike targets on ground in Swat and South Waziristan. These are tactics that are bound to generate a severe backlash against its armed forces, as has been witnessed in a spate of attacks against senior army personnel in Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

The United States justifies arms sales to Pakistan on several grounds. Besides the need to continue to retain Pakistan’s support in the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, the United States realises the fragility of the civilian regime in the face of Islamist hardliners in the army, the ISI and the country. It sees the Pakistan Army as a stabilising force in a country that is being gradually Islamised beyond redemption. The United States feels that it must do all that it can to keep the civilian regime in power. It is also deeply concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into jihadi hands if there is an Islamist coup. Hence, the United States feels inclined to offer some sops to satisfy Pakistan’s corps commanders at regular intervals. The sale of eight Orion maritime surveillance aircraft, the Phalanx gun systems and the 2000 TOW anti-tank-cum-bunker busting missiles falls in this category. Also, India and Pakistan are among the largest arms buyers in the world today and no US administration can neglect the military-industrial complex.

Though the sale of the Orion reconnaissance aircraft will make things relatively more difficult for the Indian Navy, they do not pose a direct new threat to India. The proposed sale indicates a US design to engage the Pakistan Navy in joint reconnaissance and patrolling of the sea lanes in the Gulf region by bolstering its capability while a similar exercise is being undertaken with the Indian Navy in the southern Bay of Bengal and the Malacca Straits. Clearly, the United States is planning to cooperate with the Indian Navy through its Honolulu-based Pacific Command and with the Pakistan Navy through its Central Command. Such an arrangement will also keep the Indian and Pakistan navies from having to launch joint operations and undertake search, seizure and rescue operations together.

If India wishes to influence US arms sales decisions, it must develop adequate leverages to make the United States reconsider the pros and cons very carefully. The supply of a new batch of F-16 aircraft to Pakistan will certainly enhance the strike capabilities of the PAF even though the Indian Air Force will still continue to enjoy both qualitative and quantitative superiority. India is justified in seeing the move to go ahead with the sale of the F-16s as an US attempt to balance its strategic partnership with India by once again propping up Pakistan as a regional challenger.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Holbrooke provides comic relief to Subcontinent

Poor Richard Holbrooke. Although he is a favourite of Bill and Hillary Clinton, his inability to realize that Afghanistan is not Serbia and the 1990s are not the 2000s have resulted in the US special envoy to the region being disliked by the Karzai administration and regarded with suspicion by the Manmohan Singh team. Holbrook’s standing in South Block (the location of the Prime Minister’s Office and the External Affairs Ministry) took a fresh beating after his remark that “Indians were not the target” of recent terror attacks in Kabul.

The fact is that the Taliban look with extreme disfavour at the many Indian activities in Afghanistan, and assist their friends to carry out attacks that they expect will lead to a pullback. However, the chemistry in India is different from that in Europe, where the loss of a few dozen lives leads to a public clamour for withdrawal. The people of India have seen several insurgencies over the past six decades, and each has reinforced the belief that attacks on Indian targets are each arguments not for a withdrawal but for a reinforcement of Indian strength, especially in view of the very cordial links between Delhi and Kabul under the Karzai administration Although Hillary Clinton sought to make her favourite the “Afghanistan-Pakistan-Hindustan envoy”, this led to a strong protest by South Block (who was reinforced in its opposition to the inclusion of India in Holbrook’s charter by North Block, the location of the Defense and Home Ministries).

Hence, for the first six months of 2009, Holbrook was kept away from India and had to focus only on Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, there followed several requests from first the State Department and thereafter the White House to allow Holbrook to make official visits to Delhi, and - once again at the level of Manmohan Singh, who wants to go the extra mile so far as both peace with Pakistan and the pleasing of the US is concerned — finally both South and North Block were told to drop their allergy to Holbrook and welcome him to their chambers (to reach which an unfortunate envoy often has to get past an excitable gauntlet of monkeys, who are present in strength on (and on occasion in) both buildings Now that Holbrooke has revealed that he is the only human being on the planet to believe that the numerous attacks on Indian targets in Kabul were entirely the result of mistaken identity by short-sighted Taliban suicide bombers and fighters, the poor man will get an even chillier welcome in Delhi. Before each visitation by Holbrooke, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself takes the initiative to informally ensure that the Afghanistan-Pakistan special envoy be given high-level access, even by ministers and officials who privately say that they would rather not waste their time with an envoy who seems only to repeat the message purveyed by the State Department, that India “should do more to quite the fears of the Pakistan army”.

As North Block has no intention whatsoever of giving General Kiyani an excuse to shift his forces from west to east, Raisina (the Indian Beltway) is perplexed as to what Hillary Clinton means by this litany. Of course, think-tankers close to her say that what she seeks is Indian concessions on Kashmir that would dilute sovereignty over the Valley. If the US Secretary of State truly believes that she or President Obama ( together with allies such as the EU and China) can get India to agree to such a reversal of policy, they have near-zero understanding of Indian politics. Although Prime Minister Singh has long favoured a settlement in Siachen and a re-look at the sharing of river waters, yet the PM is aware that there is no support within even his team for such a soft course towards Pakistan. Were he to go ahead and make the concessions that the Obama administration is seeking, the country would erupt in a Bangladesh-style uproar that would make Manmohan Singh’s continuance in office problematic even for his patron, Sonia Gandhi. Indeed, the Congress Party as well as his Cabinet colleagues (including the suave External Affairs Minister S M Krishna) have thus far refused to publicly echo Manmohan Singh’s numerous calls to “walk the extra mile” for peace. His only supporter is the Minister of State for External Affairs, Sashi Tharoor, who would even welcome Saudi Arabia as an interlocutor in the India-Pakistan tango.

The reality is that neither Sashi Tharoor nor Manmohan Singh have the domestic political backing needed to implement their soft line on Pakistan, much though the Obama administration wishes they would India and Saudi Arabia are indeed coming closer, but the reason for that is less ideology than money. India is one of the largest purchasers of crude oil in Asia, and this has played no small part in Saudi Arabia coming much closer to India than the kingdom has ever been. However, neither South nor North Block can forget that Saudi sources have been among the most prolific fenders of numerous separatist organisations in Kashmir, or that the kingdom hosts several dozen individuals active in the low-intensity battle to delink Kashmir from India.

From the time the Saudis backed the Taliban during the 1990s (when India was helping the Northern Alliance), the two countries have been far apart in their perception of the regional situation. These days, Riyadh is seeking to assist the Pakistan army in co-opting elements of the Taliban into a front that (they expect) will be inserted into the Afghan government by US-EU pressure on Hamid Karzai.

However, what is interesting is that the two Asian giants, India and China, are united in warning against the Pentagon policy of once again funding and facilitating the Taliban. In India, policymakers are united that the only “moderate” Taliban is a jailed Taliban. There is considerable concern in Delhi that the US and the EU, by military tactics that kill many more innocents than terrorists, and by reliance on flawed intelligence that allows the key operators to escape while a few burnt-out cases get caught, are making Afghanistan this decade into what it was in the 1980s,a theatre from where all occupying armies will get ejected. Indian military experts cannot understand why the Afghan army - which is today in the front line of the war against the Taliban - is given equipment that is vastly inferior to that of the NATO forces. The obvious discrimination between the Afghan National Army and NATO is reminiscent of the differential standards of pay and field conditions that were present between Second World War troops of Indian ehnicity and those of British lineage.

Such a racist double standard led to the mutinies of several thousand Indian troops,and to London finally accepting by 1946 that it could no longer rely on Indians to maintain the British Empire by force of arms. Today, several Afghans are deeply troubled at the differential in living standards of the NATO forces and their support staff, as compared to the “liberated” people of Afghanistan, who have since the Taliban was helped to take over power in 1996 been largely “liberated” from electricity, jobs, running water, education and healthcare Amidst all this turmoil flits Richard Holbrook. The poor man is not taken seriously except in the State Department, although he and his assistants crises-cross the region chasing peace with mythical formulas. Long ago, Vladimir Lenin wrote of Stalin’s style of governance :”Better Less but Better”. What the US needs is less of Holbrook and more of commonsense. Less of discrimination between the ANA and NATO, and a more equitable sharing of resources between the allies in the war against the Taliban. At present, the moderate Afghans are being treated as stepchildren, even though their morale and support is crucial to NATO’s victory. If only Holbrooke would try and do something about this, rather than rack up more air miles than a pilot.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
US, India set to launch economic partnership

WASHINGTON — The United States and India will launch an economic and financial partnership next month, with a permanent cabinet-level bilateral dialogue a key feature, the US Treasury said Thursday.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner will travel to India on April 6-7 to launch the US-India Economic and Financial Partnership in New Delhi with Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee.
The partnership, to focus on macroeconomic policy, the financial sector and infrastructure financing, will meet at the cabinet level, alternately in the United States and India, led by Geithner and Mukherjee, a Treasury statement said.
Working group meetings will be held throughout the year to advance discussions on specific economic areas, it said.
The partnership was first announced in November when President Barack Obama hosted Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the first state visit since he entered the White House in January.
The United States already has a standing dialogue with fellow emerging Asian giant China.
Officials said that unlike the dialogue with China, which is multi-ministerial, the forum with India was focused purely on economic and financial regulatory policy, led by the US Treasury and the Indian finance ministry.
"We are still working through how frequently the ministers will meet," one official told AFP.
Former US President George W. Bush conceived of the US dialogue with China to focus on the economy, but Obama expanded it to cover strategic issues as well. Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led the dialogue with China in July in Washington.
The US-India partnership "will serve as a platform for greater cooperation on economic issues of importance to both nations," the Treasury statement said.
"Both countries recognize the importance of expanding bilateral economic engagement, noting the rapid growth of US-India economic ties and the increasing range of global macroeconomic and financial issues on which the United States and India cooperate," it said.
During the trip, Geithner will also visit Mumbai, India?s financial center, to meet with Indian and US business leaders.
The United States and India signed a landmark nuclear deal in 2008 which allows New Delhi to enter civilian nuclear energy markets for the first time in decades despite its nuclear weapons arsenal.
The nuclear agreement was a milestone in relations between the world's two largest democracies, which had inconsistent ties during the Cold War when India was non-aligned and sometimes tilted toward the Soviet Union.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
No U.S. word on Reliance's fuel sale to Iran: India minister

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The United States has not raised the issue of gasoline sales by Reliance Industries to Iran, but New Delhi has told the U.S. government that issues with Tehran should be settled by talks, not sanctions, India's junior oil minister said.

"The government of India has conveyed to the U.S. government that sanctions on Iran have proved to be counter-productive and that all differences with Iran should be resolved through dialogue and negotiations," Jitin Prasada told parliament on Tuesday.

The U.S. Senate in end-January approved legislation that would let President Barack Obama impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Tehran's elite, a move aimed at pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Washington and Tehran are locked in a bitter dispute over the Iranian nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at producing atomic weapons and which Iran says is purely for civilian uses such as generating power.Prasada said Reliance last supplied gasoline to Iran in April and May 2009.

Iran, the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, imports about 40 percent of its gasoline to meet domestic demand because it lacks refining capacity.

(Reporting by Nidhi Verma; editing by Malini Menon)
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Press release on the visit of Foreign Secretary

Washington, DC
March 8, 2010

Foreign Secretary will be visiting Washington and New York from March 14-19th 2010. She will be co-chairing the 7th meeting of the India – US High Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG) with Dennis F. Hightower, Deputy Secretary of Commerce on March 15-16. This is the first meeting of the HTCG after the new administration assumed office in the US. Both sides hope to consolidate the progress made in the last five years and move ahead to significantly expand bilateral trade in strategic and high technology areas.

The HTCG was formed in 2002 to provide a forum for discussing U.S.-India high-technology trade issues and building the confidence necessary to facilitate trade in sensitive items. The U.S.-India Business Council (USIBC) will host the industry dialogue on March 15, 2010 in Washington, DC. This industry dialogue is organized in partnership with the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI).

During this meeting, U.S. and Indian industry representatives have an opportunity to discuss ways in which the two governments can facilitate trade in specific industry sectors, and make suggestions to the Governments of India and the USA. These industry suggestions provide substantive input for bilateral government meetings that occur the following day.

Apart from meetings in the Commerce Department, FS will also be meeting senior members of the US Administration as well as the US Congress during her stay in Washington.

India and the US had agreed on establishing a Strategic Dialogue to be co-chaired by EAM and Secretary of State and also a revised Dialogue Architecture last year during the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to India. FS in her meetings in the State Department will review the progress made on various elements of the revised dialogue architecture and also discuss the way ahead in preparation for the visit of EAM to the US later this year for the next round of Strategic Dialogue. Regional and global issues of mutual interest would also figure in these talks.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
JihadJane, an American woman, faces terrorism charges


Colleen Renee LaRose (Courtesy of San Angelo, Tex., Police Department)

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A petite, blond-haired, blue-eyed high school dropout who allegedly used the nickname JihadJane was identified Tuesday as an alleged terrorist intent on recruiting others to her cause, as federal prosecutors unsealed criminal charges that could send her to prison for life.

Colleen Renee LaRose, 46, has been quietly held in U.S. custody since October on suspicions that she provided material support to terrorists and traveled to Sweden to launch an attack, according to federal officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case is continuing to unfold.

LaRose, who lived in suburban Philadelphia, allegedly recruited men and women in the United States, Europe and South Asia to "wage violent jihad," according to an indictment issued in Pennsylvania. She fueled her interests on the Internet over the past few years and used Web sites such as YouTube to post increasingly agitated messages, the court papers said.

As an American citizen whose appearance and passport allowed her to blend into Western society, LaRose represents one of the worst fears of intelligence and FBI analysts focused on identifying terrorist threats. She is one of only a handful of women to be charged with terrorism offenses in the United States, national security experts said.

Across the ocean Tuesday, Irish police conducted morning raids in Cork and Waterford, arresting four men and three women who had been under electronic surveillance by U.S. and Swedish authorities. The seven were suspected of plotting with LaRose to attack a Swedish artist, Lars Vilks, whose 2007 drawing of the prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog enraged Muslims, according to Irish news accounts.

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the arrests in Ireland or on whether Vilks was a target of LaRose's.

David Kris, assistant attorney general for the national security division, said the prospect that a suburban American woman had conspired to support terrorists and traveled overseas to advance a plot "underscores the evolving nature of the threat we face."



Mark Wilson, a lawyer for LaRose at the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia, declined to comment. LaRose has not yet been scheduled for an arraignment on the charges, according to a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Michael L. Levy.

JihadJane, Fatima LaRose

The path that LaRose, who is 4 feet 11 inches tall and weighs barely more than 100 pounds, may have taken to jihad remains murky.

She has been married at least twice and, over several years since the mid-1980s, had been arrested in South Texas for writing bad checks and driving while intoxicated, according to court records obtained by The Washington Post.

Investigators suggest that she turned to the Internet a few years ago, using the names JihadJane and Fatima LaRose.

In a December 2007 Internet posting located by The Post, "Fatima LaRose," who said she lived in Pennsylvania, asked for advice about how to bring an Egyptian boyfriend with whom she had been corresponding for more than a year to the United States for Christmas.Months later, the indictment said, "JihadJane" described herself in a June 2008 YouTube posting as "desperate to do something somehow to help" suffering Muslims.

LaRose allegedly went on to recruit others, asking whether the prospects were European citizens who could travel freely. She looked for recruits whose physical appearance would "blend in with many people" and go undetected in Europe and the United States. She allegedly agreed to marry one co-conspirator in an effort to ease his path to Europe, according to e-mails cited in the indictment.

By March 2009, LaRose had reached out to the Swedish Embassy for information about how to acquire permanent residency in Sweden. The man identified as her potential fiance sent her instructions to "go to sweden . . . find location of" the target and "kill him . . . this is what i say to u."

LaRose allegedly responded, "i agree that it is good i blend in."

An FBI interview

FBI agents interviewed LaRose in July 2009 in Pennsylvania, where she told them that she had not solicited money for terrorism or posted on a terrorist Web site, according to the indictment, nor used the handle "JihadJane."

In August, LaRose removed and hid the hard drive from her home computer, authorities said. The same day, she traveled to Sweden "with the intent to live and train with jihadists, and to find and kill" her target, the indictment said. LaRose took with her the U.S. passport of a man identified only as "K.G.," with whom she lived, to give it to "the brothers," the indictment said.

In September, she performed online searches to find her target, joined an electronic community that he hosted and journeyed to his artists' enclave in Sweden, the indictment said. By Sept. 30, LaRose e-mailed the man identified as her fiance, saying it would be "an honour & great pleasure to die or kill for" him and asserting that "only death will stop me here that i am so close to the target!"

LaRose ultimately returned to the United States, where she was charged in October in a criminal complaint with helping transfer a U.S. passport belonging to K.G. She appeared in court in Pennsylvania on Oct. 16, where she was appointed a public defender, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney and a representative in the public defender's office.



Authorities declined to address Tuesday why the grand jury indictment of LaRose remained under seal for so long and whether she may have helped law enforcement during her months-long incarceration.

But the Justice Department has used such a strategy in several cases to glean more intelligence information on suspects and plots before making their investigations public, veterans of the department said. Spokesman Dean Boyd said "there were investigative activities we had to protect, and had the case been made public . . . those activities could have been jeopardized."

J. Patrick Rowan, former chief of the Justice Department's national security division, said the LaRose indictment is "another indication of how the threats come from all directions."

"If nothing else, it's another reminder to the FBI of the obligation to run down every lead and every threat, because they can't be too far-fetched," Rowan said.

Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu and staff researchers Alice Crites and Julie Tate contributed to this report.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Obama sets India adrift

The Canberra Times
My colleague, Paul Heinbecker, Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations, once commented wryly that the distance from hubris to delusion is short and the George W. Bush administration covered it in a sprint.
By the end of his second term, Bush was so deeply unpopular around the world that little was required of his successor to establish international popularity and be an early contender for the Nobel peace prize. Simply by staying out of sight and doing nothing, President Barack Obama would have stopped further international alienation of friendly and allied citizens, halted the decline in multilateral cooperation and reversed the growth of anti- American rage among Muslims.
Yet even in this bleak international landscape of the Bush administration, relations with Israel and India stood out for their exceptional warmth. Going by the first year of his administration, Obama may well complete the alienation agenda with both. The glitter of the first state banquet for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh notwithstanding, the relationship with India is adrift under an inattentive Obama.
This is a pity. The signing of the bilateral civil nuclear cooperation deal by Bush followed by shepherding the process of its endorsement by the international community reinvigorated the previously rudderless relationship and spawned massive pro-United States sentiment. Acting together, India and the US could bend the arc of international history towards mutually attractive destinations.
The US has a chance to exploit India's partnership potential in addressing key regional and global challenges by crafting policies that view India as a solution, not a problem. Basing its India policy through short-term interests derived from third-party relations like Pakistan and China will not just reverse the Bush gains. They will also jeopardise many significant US policy goals for the immediate future and waste a valuable long-term strategic asset. The more than two million Indo-Americans extremely successful, highly educated, among the richest cohorts by household income and fiercely proud of their dual identity provide an enduring ballast to the bilateral relationship.
First and, strategically speaking, most importantly, India is a model for all developing and Asian countries: democratic, secular, stable and now even prosperous. It is a striking refutation of the alleged incompatibility of democracy, stability and economic growth with Third World conditions, or even with Islam: India's 150million Muslims are comfortable with democratic institutions and practices.
Second, India's national security interests dovetail with major US security challenges: containing the spread of Islamist fundamentalism, defeating international terrorism, stabilising Pakistan by nurturing the fragile roots of secularism and democracy, securing Afghanistan, preventing the domination of Asia by China, and stopping nuclear proliferation to other nations and terrorists. For these goals India is potentially America's most important partner in Asia. Japan is a longer, closer and more reliable ally, but its strategic footprint stops in East Asia. With the exception of North Korea and Taiwan important long-term security concerns current US security preoccupations are in the region in which India is the natural hegemon. As the most powerful hegemon itself that dominates the Americas, it is puzzling the US fails to see the parallel with respect to the role but also the jealousies and resentments in the neighbourhood.
Third, on most global challenges, from the new G20 grouping to address the task of an orderly exit from the financial crisis to the stalled Doha round of trade talks and the setbacks and reverses in meeting the threat of global warming, India's cooperation is critical to making meaningful progress. After the Copenhagen collapse on climate change, some commentators made the point that the third party in the G3 after the US and China is not Europe, but India. Europe was missing in action in Copenhagen as a united and powerful actor. Its choice of inaugural president and "foreign minister" shows how much it is trapped in its own soft bigotry of low expectations.
Not so India. There the chief problem may be the expectations- capacity gap in the opposite direction, where future potential is giving an exaggerated sense of current political weight.
Instead of understanding and accommodating India's legitimate interests and world views and working with India's democratic compulsions, the US seems indifferent to and irritated by them.
On the Doha round, how many US policymakers know that 199,132 Indian farmers committed suicide in the 12 years, 1997-2008? One reason is the vicious debt trap caused by the removal of quantitative restrictions under the World Trade Organisation regime that has left India's small and marginal farmers, with no access to crop insurance, exposed to the volatility of international markets and prices. No democratic government can ignore such epic human tragedy. On climate change, should Indians accept a permanently lower standard of living than Americans? In the global media village, this would not be an election- winning platform for any political party.
The US was previously permissive of Chinese complicity in Pakistan's nuclearisation and of Pakistan nurturing terrorism as an instrument of state policy. The anti-Taliban alliance in Afghanistan was kept alive, among others, by India whose role it is among the largest donors to reconstruction in Afghanistan focusing on building roads, schools, hospitals and a new parliament is welcomed by many Afghans who are suspicious of Pakistan's involvement. Efforts to compartmentalise the terror threat to US and Western interests from that to India is false in principle and contradicted in practice by an intricate network of jihadists who work with one another against Christians, Hindus and Jews.
Any government of Pakistan has a vested and understandable interest in preserving a friendly Islamist faction based in Afghanistan as a counter to India's role. The faction's total liquidation would reduce US dependence on Pakistan.
Why should Pakistan cooperate?
Being able to convince the US to exert pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute on Pakistan's terms would be an added bonus. Success on this would not end Pakistan's self- serving half-heartedness in cooperating with the US, would not end the threat of Islamist insurgency in Afghanistan, would not turn Pakistanis into champions of the US role in the world, but would turn majority sentiment in India against the US. Some equation.
Yet in his leaked report, General Stanley McChrystal parroted Pakistani warnings that growing Indian influence in Afghanistan would exacerbate regional tensions and encourage "counter-measures" by Pakistan. In a recent poll of Afghans commissioned by the BBC, the American Broadcasting Corporation and the German broadcasting company ARD, India was the most favourably viewed country with 71 per cent and the US third with 51 per cent; Pakistan received 2 per cent of the votes.
The US search for accommodation with China is understandable. The US-China relationship is likely to be the world's most consequential for the foreseeable future. Nor can one reasonably expect the US to lecture its chief creditor (to the tune of $US800billion) on human rights. But does it help the US in its relations with China to adopt a stance of neutrality on such issues as India's north-eastern provinces? Does it advance US global non-proliferation interests to remain quiet on China's supply of designs and material to Pakistan which then found their way to Libya, Iran and North Korea? To concede Asia as China's sphere of influence when under challenge as a military, economic and technological power?
Instead, an unapologetic robust Indo-US defence relationship, backed by parallel arrangements between India and Australia, Japan and Israel that is not directed against specific third countries, would appear to be in all their interests.
As Fareed Zakaria an American Muslim of Indian origin has noted, for the US in Southern Asia, the prize is India, the booby prize is Afghanistan. Indians recall nostalgically how they were romanced by Bush. Singh and Obama are equally cool and cerebral, if one is more erudite and the other more eloquent. Like Americans, many Indians would welcome signs of passion to re-energise the relationship.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
'No slowdown in Indo-US relations'http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/no-slowdown-in-indo-us-relations/388455/

It is refreshing to meet the head of a global corporate giant who speaks candidly, including about his rivals. W James (Jim) McNerney, Jr, chairman, president and chief executive officer of The Boeing Company, does that and more. He declares that in a year or two Boeing will overtake Airbus to regain the number one position in commercial aerospace, which it ceded seven years ago. The centerpiece of his strategy is the emerging markets, especially India. He is looking to use the country’s intellectual capability to Boeing’s advantage, as seen in an agreement signed with a university on the day he spoke at length to Suveen K Sinha. McNerney, chairman of US President Barack Obama’s exports council, was in India to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as part of his efforts to understand how India-US relations have evolved in the post-Bush era. He goes back reassured, but vigilant. Edited excerpts:
How was your meeting with the prime minister?
It was good. I talked of our deepening commitment and engagement here, that I appreciate the many partnerships that we have been able to have here as we have now been able to link India more into our global technology delivery, and thanked him for the climate that he has created between the United States and India, and the deepening ties, especially in the defence business, which have positively impacted Boeing’s business.

One of the things the prime minister said when he met President Obama in Washington was that the high-technology export controls, many of them still in place, were impeding business, especially in your area. Did you discuss that?
I think both sides have acknowledged that this is an issue at many levels. Our president has committed to driving export facilitation, particularly on the defence side. I think he will be reaching out to some industry leadership to help think this through and he has asked me to help think about this. But it is in many respects about the bureaucracy in the state department. At the top level everyone is committed. The congressional oversight also has to facilitate it.

What is the progress with the F18 fighter planes you want to sell to the Indian Air Force?
The defence market here has opened up for American firms and I think we have been fortunate to have some early engagement. We are having some discussions about border patrol planes and airlift requirements. The fighters are down the road a little and we are in the middle of that competition. Of course we would like to win it, but I believe there are five competitors. I am very impressed with the MoD’s (ministry of defence’s) approach here. I think it is transparent, very rigorous, and I feel it will be a fair and open competition. That is a good feeling to have, especially when you think you have the best fighter (laughs).

How does doing business with India compare with doing business with China, though I believe you do not deal in defence with China?
We do not have any defence engagement with China. That is a government-to-government issue. But we do big commercial business with both the countries. It is interesting because India represents the two extremes. India has a government-owned entity and it is very much a transaction with the airline as well as the ministry. On the other side, there are eight or nine independent airlines that are commercial and privately financed. So you deal with both sides. China is something in the middle. Every airline has some government influence, but is a little more independent.

Which is easier? Dealing with governments or private entities, which try to extract the last penny out of you?
(laughs) Governments can do a pretty good job of extracting the last penny. I don’t think it is either-or. It is about making sure your company can do both well.

The defence offsets policy is a key thing in India. Does it make commercial sense for you?
It does for Boeing because it helps build global capability coming out of India and that is in our best interest. There is strong technical capability here, and low cost. It also has the benefit of continuing to develop aerospace in India.

There is this talk about joint production in India and China…
In some cases, the systems we develop can be joint efforts. They can be done locally with the original design and original platform coming from the US. But, not in every case. It is dependent on the system. That is a discussion in the fighter campaign and we are open to that. We have a deep relationship of over 20 years with HAL (state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) about a number of systems and structures. We have a good partner for the extent to which we need to do some localisation of assembly, or final systems testing and certification. The intent is to localise the production of the plane over time. We want to work with the Indians to make that happen.

You also have a partner in a Tata Motors subsidiary. Are you taking on more partners? Is more work being localised?
There isn’t a company in India with aerospace capability with which we are not working. A couple of companies are providing software and structures for the 787, our new airplane (also called the Dreamliner).

Do you still do more local manufacturing in China than in India?
We do not do final assembly in either. It is sort of the same level of engagement in both countries.

It seems Boeing is also looking at India for research and development. You have opened an R&D centre in Bangalore. Do you see more R&D moving to India from other parts of the world?
The answer is yes. We, like many large American companies, have significant IT outsourcing. We are deepening this. The Bangalore centre you mentioned will grow over time. We have also got some other linkages into universities and the government. If I can be vague, we are working on some other linkages with universities. We signed an MoU with a university today, but that is not public yet. There is a lot of talent here, but it is still early days for fully integrated aerospace applications. This is an example of offset obligation that will benefit us, as well as the companies and entities we are working with.

While staying vague on this subject, what role can universities play?
They provide a significant amount of talent. In an incubator setting, for example, and this would be a typical approach we are thinking of, we can engage other companies and some university capability wrapped in an aerospace theme. The academia can engage with businesses to address aerospace problems.

As you know, Business Standard is a great place to make such announcements.
(Laughs) Sorry for being so cryptic. This would definitely increase over time. There is so much engineering talent here. It just has to get conversant with aerospace applications.

When is the MRO at Nagpur coming up?
We are building it as part of the deal with Air India.

Does it make commercial sense for you?
Whether it makes commercial sense or not, Air India will get its MRO.

How do you look at the competition in India in comparison with the competition in other markets?
India as a market is broader than most, with eight or nine major customers and the defence business which is now open. We try to present ourselves as one Boeing here — one face to both government and commercial customers. You want to make it simpler. The local science and technical capability adds a new dimension. It excites me. We want to pull more technology out of India by using the brains here.

What about the nature of competition?
Our competition tends to be narrower, approaches markets based on narrower stands. They don’t have the same kind of overall weight we do. We want to be broader and more local. We have a chance to be significantly deeper. Whether we are successful or not, we will find out.

US companies face a lack of historical experience. Our defence guys have dealt with the Russians, not the Americans. They worry how reliable the US is as a supplier.
I don’t deny it. They are not used to dealing with us as they are with our competitors, especially the Russians. I think our export controls can be facilitated and improved . I do understand the concern about the predictability, and the ultimate capability they can get on any platform. I understand and will spend a fair amount of time to improve those processes, so they won’t feel that way.

The problem is not so much with your company as with your government.
It is a question of working with our Congress and the executive branch of our government to facilitate it. President Obama has committed to the PM that he will improve these processes to make them more reliable. It does present competitive issues with other offers. It is a fair criticism. We have to roll up our sleeves and work with our government and legislature. President Obama is trying to set that tone right now in the United States. His leadership will be important.

In 2003, EADS overtook Boeing on the commercial side. The A380 of Airbus has created the most buzz in the industry. Boeing seems to be playing catch-up. Do you see yourself regaining the number one position?
First, let us get our facts right. We are, by far, the largest aerospace company in the world. About the commercial part of our business, you are right, it is Airbus. Based on the growth of the 787 and 777, we anticipate overtaking them over the next year or two. The growth of the 787 is by far the most successful introduction of an airplane in history. We have 876 orders from 56 customers around the world and we have not delivered the plane yet. This is a huge innovation and a huge hit and there is maybe a little more buzz in the industry about the 787 than the A380. Sorry, I am being defensive. I feel very good about our wide-body strategy. I feel very comfortable with the competitiveness of our airplanes — the 787 and 777 — when compared to the A380, A340 and the A330, and my guess is that we have a good chance of overtaking Airbus and we would be driven by these wide-body airplanes. Also, they will have to respond to us.

Last year, things slowed down a bit and airlines found it a problem to raise finance. How do you feel about cancellation of orders?
The financial situation has affected some airlines more than the others. But, we have felt no impact. We have faced no cancellation in India. Our competitor has faced a little more difficulty there. I’m being a little immodest, but I think we chose our partners wisely.

In all these deals you strike globally, especially for defence, it seems politics plays an important role. What is Boeing’s philosophy in managing politics?
The first thing we try to do is to win the competition as if there were no politics. I don’t want my team to rely on politics. We are going to win because we have the best airplanes, the best systems and the best support and trust from our customers. You are right, politics can play a role. The overall climate, for one. In the Indian situation everything changed because of what Manmohan singh and George Bush did. The civil nuclear deal embodies it, but the climate totally changed. That created a level playing field for us and now we can compete. We can’t control politics. We try to understand it. We try to make sure that everyone in the political environment understands why we should be the winner. We try to adapt to the politics and be responsive to it.

Are you worried now that President Bush is gone? Do you think the warmth in Indo-US relations is gone?
It is one of the things I wanted to find out when I came here. I have been asking everyone this question, trying to assess the relationship. But, the sum total of our discussions here and back in Washington is that there has not been a slowdown in momentum. Issues with Pakistan crop up because of the different angles we have — us with terrorism and you with the historical relationship. The momentum has been maintained, even though there have been some difficulties. President Obama tried to send every signal he could that the civil nuclear agreement and other agreements will be a major priority. He has tried to reassure the Indians.

Do you go back reassured?
Yes, I would say so, but we have to be vigilant. This is a new relationship and until we get to know each other better, little things can seem to be out of proportion. But, the mutual self interest is real and that is what keeps us together. The world is a safer place because of US’ relationship with India.

No discussion is complete without a direct comparison between China and India. How do you see the two markets evolving?
They are both fast-developing markets. The Indian economy is a little narrower but deeper, with IT and knowledge-based industries. It is not as strong in manufacturing, but is rapidly improving. But, China has more manufacturing capability. I never see China and India as either-or. They will both be huge winners. The political challenges will be more a problem to surmount than the economic ones. I don’t think it will matter which one will be bigger.

How much a dream is the Dreamliner?
Did you think of that question all night… (laughs)? About the Dreamliner, the thing we got right is that we came up with the right product, made of the right materials, involving the right technologies and it is a huge winner. What we did wrong is that we overestimated our ability to develop it as quickly as we promised. That involved the global supply chain. We went a bridge too far with some of our partnerships. The technology, particularly the composites technology which the plane is made of, had not settled down yet. We needed to re-engineer some things. It feels good to move from the bleeding edge to the leading edge.

Did you think of that line all of last night?
(Laughs) .. I have used that line before. We are in tests right now. We have three planes in the air. We will soon have six. It is becoming a reality. We have no major glitches. We are keeping our fingers crossed that nothing major will crop up and we will see our first deliveries this year.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Putin Steps Into the India Breach

By SUMIT GANGULY

India's prime minister declared Russia a "key pillar of our foreign policy and a valuable strategic partner" Friday. There's no stronger signal that the Obama administration's neglect of India is starting to have real foreign-policy consequences. If the United States doesn't act quickly, much of the progress in U.S.-India relations over the past decade will be lost.

Mr. Singh is simply renewing long historical ties with Russia; ties that flourished most strongly during the Cold War. Back then, India relied on the Soviet veto to protect itself from possible censure at the United Nations Security Council concerning the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir. India also depended on the Soviets to supply cheap, sophisticated military technology, and counted on them to counter China in the event of renewed conflict along the disputed Himalayan border.

The Soviets, in turn, saw the diplomatic advantage of limiting American influence in India. It was a major diplomatic coup: Moscow could boast of excellent relations with the world's largest democracy and a leader of both the Group of 77 developing nations and a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Later, in the wake of a disastrous invasion of Afghanistan, the Russians could also count on India's studious silence at the U.N. General Assembly during debates about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's visit to New Delhi last week underscored the renewed significance of this bilateral relationship. This makes sense: India's economy is thriving, and so are its investment opportunities. Thanks to the arduous efforts of the Bush administration, which helped forge the historic Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear accord, India can now engage in the global civilian nuclear trade. Ironically, the Russians are now cashing in on it. During Mr. Putin's visit, the two sides agreed on a road map for the construction of two new 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors at Kudankulam in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.

The Russians are also eager to revive the arms relationship. They have already bagged the sale of a refurbished Soviet-era aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshokov, which is due to be delivered to India by the end of 2012. While in New Delhi last week, Mr. Putin successfully negotiated the sale of more of the naval versions of the MiG-29 fighter aircraft which can use the Gorshokov as a platform, and pitched the sale of new MiG-35 multi-role combat aircraft. Currently, the Indian Air Force is in the market to acquire as many as 126 such aircraft, for the sum of about $12 billion. An active bidding war between American, European and Russian military aircraft manufacturers is underway.

Finally, Mr. Putin's 24-hour visit also underscored the reaffirmation of the significance of Indo-Russian diplomatic ties, which drifted under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. Mr. Yeltsin was predominately occupied with domestic politics, and when he did focus attention abroad, it was on courting the West, not India. At that time, India had fewer investment opportunities and its arm sales opportunities weren't attractive to Moscow. All that has now changed.

Russia's renewed push into the subcontinent stands in sharp contrast to U.S. neglect, which has left many policy makers in New Delhi both frustrated and bewildered. Mr. Singh's state visit to the U.S. in October was conducted with much fanfare. There has been pitiably little effort from Washington to follow up on matters of substance such as cooperative ventures in trade, counterterrorism and military-to-military ties. The U.S.-India civil nuclear deal has been passed, but there's an outstanding dispute concerning the potential liability of American suppliers. Mr. Obama has spent far more time courting states like North Korea, China and Pakistan than he has India.

Good Indo-Russian relations need not necessarily come at the cost of a robust Indo-U.S. relationship. However, bilateral ties aren't formed or maintained of their own accord. If Mr. Obama continues to neglect India, other powers—many of which see the U.S. has a strategic competitor—will step into the breach. Given all the authoritarian regimes, terrorism and the tenuous economic recovery in Asia, can Mr. Obama really allow U.S.-India relations to backslide into the mutual neglect last seen during the Cold War? We may be about to find out.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
India, the United States, and High-Tech Trade

Perhaps unbeknownst even to the most avid follower of U.S.-India relations, the seventh annual U.S.-India High Technology Cooperation Group (HTCG) meetings will be held in Washington this Monday and Tuesday. There is much to celebrate. U.S.-India trade has nearly tripled from $13.5 billion in 2001 to $37.6 billion in 2009. Last year, high-tech products accounted for more than 13 percent of total bilateral trade and nearly 25 percent of all U.S. exports to India. Despite these successes, complacency has plagued recent HTCG discussions. Vital but thorny issues have been routinely glossed over and tough discussions conveniently postponed. In reality, the U.S.-India trade relationship requires more attention, from both sides. The current trend must change: the United States and India must take a roll-up-your-sleeves approach to address barriers to bilateral high-tech trade.

Conceived in 2002 out of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s vision for closer U.S.-India cooperation, the HTCG was instituted to enhance bilateral high-tech trade and to promote confidence building in the trade of sensitive goods and technologies. Co-chaired by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s undersecretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ foreign secretary and in partnership with the U.S.-India Business Council, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and Confederation of Indian Industry, the HTCG is a two-day conference in which U.S. and Indian industry representatives meet to discuss impediments to bilateral trade and provide recommendations to their governments, which then subsequently take up these recommendations and other bilateral issues. Over the years, the HTCG has included discussions on defense and strategic trade, biotechnology and life sciences, nanotechnology, and information technology. This year, there will be talks on these areas as well as civil aviation and industry meetings on civil nuclear issues.

As this is the first HTCG of the Obama administration and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s re-elected government, the conference presents a prime opportunity to discuss long-standing issues important to the U.S.-India relationship, specifically export controls, defense trade, and civil nuclear cooperation.

U.S.-India trade has nearly tripled from $13.5 billion in 2001 to $37.6 billion in 2009.
U.S. Export Control Policy: There have been repeated calls for the United States to relax export controls toward India to take into account the transformed bilateral relationship. In brief, the United States maintains some unilateral controls on exports to India based on a number of reasons, including historic nonproliferation concerns. In addition, some Indian entities are on the “Entity List,” which invokes special licensing requirements for entities whose activities have been deemed to increase the risk of diversion to weapons of mass destruction programs and to pose other threats to U.S. foreign policy interests. To put export controls into context, in 1999, 24 percent of total U.S. exports to India required a “dual-use” license from BIS, today that number is less than 0.2 percent. While this number appears small, it is impossible to quantify trade that is precluded due to misperceptions over the reach of U.S. export controls.

Reportedly, the White House has already tabled a proposal to revise U.S. export control policy toward India. BIS Assistant Secretary Kevin Wolf is slated to speak at the HTCG and may shed more light on what has been proposed. The Obama administration should be commended for taking up this unfinished business of the Bush administration: U.S. export control policy should take into account India’s status as a strategic ally. However, U.S. proposals should be matched with reciprocal commitments. India should shed its reluctance to join the multilateral export control regimes, provide substantiation for why its listed entities should be removed from the Entity List, and be more aware of U.S. political sensitivities with respect to certain U.S. licensing requirements. The HTCG should provide a forum for meaningful discussions on these issues and both sides should be prepared to make concrete commitments to move the process forward.

Defense Trade: Since the completion of the 2005 U.S.-India defense framework, military-to-military contacts and joint exercises have been on the rise along with defense trade. India is expected to expand its military and homeland security capabilities, spending at least $30 billion in acquisitions over the next five years, rising to more than $100 billion in the next ten years. U.S. defense companies are well-placed to supply this demand. India recently purchased six Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules Airlifters and the Department of Defense recently notified Congress of a potential upcoming sale of 145 M777 light-weight Howitzers. U.S. companies are also among the finalists for the Indian government’s purchase of a fleet of Multi-Role Combat Aircrafts.

As this is the first U.S.-India High Technology Cooperation Group of the Obama administration and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s re-elected government, the conference presents a prime opportunity to discuss long-standing issues important to the U.S.-India relationship.
While defense procurement continues to be an important element of the U.S.-India strategic relationship, there are issues which are hindering more robust trade. First, the Indian government has not yet signed the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation (AGC), which are crucial to providing mutual logistical support and enabling the exchange of sensitive communications and equipment. Prime Minister Singh faces domestic opposition to these agreements over sovereignty concerns. The United States has historically been dogmatic about such agreements, but they are required under U.S. law in order to sell top-flight U.S. military equipment abroad and enhance cooperation between military forces. The United States and India should conclude these agreements to pave the way for enhanced technology and information sharing, and closer cooperation on counterterrorism and regional and global security efforts.

Second, the Indian government maintains a restrictive “offset” policy which requires that foreign firms selling defense products to India must re-invest up to 30 percent of their investment in India. The purpose of offsets is to enhance indigenous military production capabilities. However, because of historic state involvement in Indian defense production, the nascent private Indian defense production base is not yet equipped to support this magnitude of investment. The Indian government should consider adopting international best practices for offsets by rethinking the scope of where offsets may be reinvested, making the policy more practical for all parties.

Civil Nuclear Cooperation: The landmark U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement—the crown jewel of the U.S.-India strategic partnership—was signed in October 2008, but remains unimplemented due to a number of unresolved bilateral issues. French and Russian nuclear companies have been the beneficiaries of this delay, at the expense of U.S. companies, and have progressively secured a larger market share in India. These outstanding issues must be addressed without delay so that the U.S. efforts in forging the Civil Nuclear Agreement actually yield benefits for U.S. industry. There will be industry meetings on civil nuclear cooperation during the HTCG, but no government meetings. Consequently, the governments should refer the industry recommendations to the appropriate forum for immediate action.

A U.S.-India agreement on the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is also pending and needs to be completed in short order.
First, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is required to authorize U.S. companies to participate in most aspects of civil nuclear activities abroad through the Part 810 process. Applications to provide nuclear products and technologies to India have been submitted to DOE, but the Indian government has balked at providing the required nonproliferation assurances, claiming that these were already provided under the Civil Nuclear Agreement. These Part 810 assurances are required under U.S. law and were known to the Indian government in advance. India should look to provide these Part 810 assurances as soon as possible.

Second, a U.S.-India agreement on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is also pending and needs to be completed in short order. Negotiations began in July 2009 and a number of deadlines have passed. Moreover, the Indian Department of Atomic Energy has apparently taken the position that the reprocessing agreement is a prerequisite to doing business with any U.S. nuclear company. This policy includes U.S. nuclear fuel suppliers, who do not require Part 810 assurances to operate in India. The Indian government has instead concluded nuclear fuel supply agreements with France, Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and others, supplanting most potential business opportunities for U.S. companies.

Third, India is neither party to any international convention on nuclear liability nor has any domestic laws which limit nuclear damage liability for suppliers of nuclear materials—a requirement for the participation of U.S. companies in the Indian civil nuclear market not just of U.S. suppliers, but all private-sector companies, including Indian companies. There is currently nuclear liability legislation pending in the Indian parliament, but it is facing stiff political opposition. In addition, India has yet to join the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which will provide added liability protections. French and Russian companies have not required the Indian government to take action on nuclear liability, likely because of their respective home government support. The cost of this time delay has again been borne by U.S. suppliers and must be addressed.

The issues discussed above have persisted for years and are impeding significant opportunities for the expansion of U.S.-India high-tech trade. The HTCG can provide a re-energized forum in which these and other bilateral irritants can be taken up and resolved. The U.S.-India strategic partnership as a whole will be the beneficiary.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Walker's World: Obama is losing India


WASHINGTON, March 15 (UPI) -- The Obama administration is trying to play catch-up in its relations with the country that could become its most important long-term ally. But it may be leaving it too late, after India last week agreed a $7 billion deal in arms, nuclear reactors and space technology with Russia.

India's strategic importance can hardly be exaggerated. More than just the other Asian economic giant after China, India is a democracy where English is an official language. It shares with Washington the same love-hate attitude toward China, hopeful but deeply suspicious at the same time. And with a much healthier demographic profile than China, most extrapolations of long-term trend suggest that India's economy will outgrow China's by the second half of this century.

U.S. President Barack Obama himself seems to have understood this. The first state dinner he hosted was for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And then were strong foundations on which to build. His Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton had started the courtship of India in the 1990s and President George W. Bush's commitment to India was one of the few successes of his troubled foreign policy.

Bush's legacy was a nuclear cooperation agreement, which allowed India to escape the nuclear isolation into which it was plunged after testing a nuclear weapon outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush's deal also opened the way for the United States to sell nuclear power stations, fuel and other technology to India and to forge a lasting strategic partnership.

But for a host of reasons the Obama administration has let India slip down the list of its priorities. Not all of these reasons relate to Islamic terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and consequent urge to focus on Pakistan.

The economic crisis has emphasized China's importance, as the country with the biggest trade surplus with the United States and as the second leading holder of U.S. securities after Japan. China's diplomatic role, as a member of the U.N. Security Council and thus wielding a veto, has also underlined China's pivotal position in U.S. attempts to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and north Korea.

India understandably chafes at the sense that it plays second fiddle in Washington, lacking that network of institutional ties and official relationships that cement connections to other leading powers.

"The U.S.-Indian relationship remains constrained," notes Evan Feigenbaum, senior fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia and Central Asia. "Although U.S. officials hold standing dialogues about nearly every region of the world with their counterparts from Beijing, Brussels and Tokyo, no such arrangements exist with New Delhi."

Other states, notably Russia, have not led India slip to the back burner. Last week's visit to New Delhi of Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has seen the signing of a number of strategic deals. They included an aircraft carrier, MiG-29 fighters, defense and space technology and at least 12 civilian nuclear reactors. Putin also said he wanted the current $8 billion in annual trade with India to more than double to $20 billion.

The deal to buy the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov has been in the works for years, delayed by the need for an almost complete overhaul of the ship and by haggling over the terms. The initial price tag was $1.5 billion, which Russia increased to $2.5 billion but has now settled for $2.3 billion, to include its complement of 45 MiG-29 warplanes.

This is still a fraction of the price of an air fleet-equipped modern U.S.-built carrier, even if one were available, or even of the smaller British and French carriers now being developed. But India's current carrier, the Viraat, is the former British vessel HMS Hermes, built in 1959. Obsolete and usually in dock, its obsolescence means India needs another carrier quickly if it is to maintain the complex skills essential to carrier deployment. India's first domestically produced carrier, the Vikrant, now under construction in Cochin, is unlikely to be operational before 2015.

What Putin did not get was any commitment that India would pick Russian warplanes for its planned $11 billion purchase of 126 state-of-the-art fighters, intended to give the country's air force the technological edge over China and Pakistan in the current Asian arms race. It is the deal that everyone wants to win, from the Eurofighter to Boeing's Super Hornet and Russia's MiG-35.

But that arms deal is just a fraction of the estimated $150 billion that India will be sending on energy technology, from nuclear reactors to oil and gas exploration and wind and solar. American hopes of winning a major slice of these contracts have been stalled over an elusive agreement on reprocessing nuclear fuel.

Robert Blake, the senior State Department official dealing with India and its region, is hopeful that a deal can be concluded by this summer. Indian officials are less optimistic and query U.S. insistence that India's parliament enact a limited liability rule on compensation for nuclear accidents, an issue that does not seem to worry Russian and French suppliers.

There is a pattern here. Two far-reaching agreement on U.S.-Indian military cooperation have stalled, as have other projects for hi-tech and space research cooperation.

The real problem is fundamental. Indians complain that the Obama administration still sees India less as a great power in its own right, than as a walk-on player in two issues that worry Washington more. The first is the Afghan-Pakistan imbroglio and the second is U.S.-China relations. Obama's suggestion, during his cap-in-hand visit to Beijing, that China help the United States "manage" the Indo-Pakistan problem "led to the mistrust of Obama that today pervades the Indian establishment," argues influential Indian commentator Professor Madhav Nalapat.

"President Obama's policy of downgrading India to the level of a South Asian power is pushing Delhi closer toward Moscow and Beijing," Nalapat adds." If such an axis takes place, the 'credit' will go to the Obama administration. India sees itself as an Asian power with a global focus. Those unwilling to accept this cannot be defined as friends."
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
US may exempt some Indian VIPs from frisking

After the frisking fiasco involving former president A P J Abdul Kalam on a US-bound American airline last year, the US aviation security department, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has conveyed to its Indian counterpart that it may exempt four to five categories of VVIPs from frisking before entering its aircraft.

The VVIP list is likely to include past and present presidents, the Vice-President, the Prime Minister and the present Union Cabinet. The list has been pruned down from some 30-40 categories of VVIPs which currently figure in the country’s Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) list who are exempted from frisking.

The matter had come up for detailed discussion during a meeting of the Indo-US joint working group held in January this year.

“A formal response from the TSA is awaited. However, they have agreed in principle to exempt four-five categories of VVIPs from frisking ahead of boarding a flight,” said a senior Civil Aviation Ministry official. The list will be prepared and finalised at the next meeting of the ministry with the US security agency.


Since such privileges are extended on a reciprocal basis, India will also review the list of US dignitaries it wants to exempt from frisking.

The US authorities may consider private screening for the VIPs separately at designated VIP lounges, as they had expressed reservations about accommodating the huge list of Indian VIPs for exemption.

Kalam’s frisking last year had outraged parliamentarians and the matter was raised in Parliament. Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel had then claimed that the BCAS would be registering an FIR against Continental Airlines for conducting the security check on Kalam in violation of existing rules. The FIR was, however, never filed. TSA, the highest transport security body in the US, was established in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to secure US transportation systems. Since then, aviation security has been stepped up to combat terror attacks. It recently decided to enhance screening for those who hold a passport issued by, or are travelling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
A matter of focus

Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.

Have President Barack Obama's domestic preoccupations affected his foreign policy? During a year plus in office he has understandably focused much of his effort on issues and challenges at home. But has this produced any significant consequence for the conduct of US foreign policy? Do other factors including his personality also explain some of his approach to international affairs?

Given the difficult inheritance he has had to grapple with Obama's overriding priority has been domestic: to get a stalled economy moving again. Dealing with the legacy of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has justifiably been the initial focus of his policy attention.

On his signature domestic reform issue – health care – President Obama is now approaching a make-or-break moment. In the next couple of weeks Congress will decide the fate of his legislative initiative. He has been critiqued by some for dissipating energy over a nationally divisive issue while not making adequate efforts to address the budget deficit and rising joblessness, now touching record levels. While economic recovery and cutting unemployment are what will determine Obama's political future – polls show that Americans consider these two issues as the top challenges – it is health care that he has been most passionate about.

But on this issue too he let matters drift after the initial declaration of policy intent, allowing conservative opponents to define the issue, only to reenergise the effort more recently for a final push to get the reform through Congress. This seems to have established a pattern in Obama's governance: make major announcements, deliver countless speeches, engage in prolonged debate followed by dithering and then seek to build momentum to arrive at the policy destination.

This protracted style of consultations has already earned him the title of 'seminar leader-in-chief.' In the foreign policy sphere Obama's extended internal discussions on Afghanistan and several reviews of reviews are the most striking example of this.

If Obama is able to secure health care reform it would be an important accomplishment even if the measure is watered down. But doubts about his governance style will not go away. Nor will pressing domestic issues that will continue to warrant his sustained engagement.

These relate principally to the economy but also include mounting political problems. This means dealing with the setbacks the ruling party has suffered after the electoral debacle in Massachusetts and subsequent announcements by many Democratic members of Congress that they will not seek re-election. Mid-term Congressional elections in November amid a mood of voter frustration will mean that Obama's attention will increasingly be fixed on the political landscape at home.

So far – and his presidency is still young – Obama's domestic commitments seem to have had three kinds of effects on his foreign policy.

The first is one that every leader struggles with: how to prioritise the many international issues needing attention. A foreign policy area apparently affected by President Obama's selective diplomatic engagement is the so-called special relationship with Europe. When Obama declined to attend the US-EU Summit in Madrid last May, many in Europe construed this as downgrading relations if not a snub, even as his administration was urging NATO allies to step up and contribute troops to reinforce the American surge in Afghanistan.

It may well be – given the priority he has rightly given to relations with China – that Obama has a keen sense of where the global balance of power has shifted, but this has certainly left European allies wondering where they figure in Washington's list of priorities.

Another more vital policy area where Obama has not focused consistent attention is the Middle East, especially after the expectations raised and the promising start he made by his outreach-to-Muslims speech last June in Cairo. The Palestinian- Israeli peace process has remained deadlocked for over a year.

Only last week Obama dispatched his vice-president to the region to make a renewed effort to kick-start the peace process. But he has not invested or empowered these efforts with his personal involvement or engaged directly with an issue that he gave such high priority. Obama deemed a Middle East settlement vital to America's national security. He had therefore vowed not to repeat the mistake of his predecessors by leaving the issue to be addressed later rather than sooner in his tenure.

But his administration has continued to ignore the plight of the people of Gaza. The hopes aroused by his election have increasingly given way to deep disappointment in the Muslim world.

A second aspect of Obama's approach is that while at home he has sought to pursue a liberal agenda – even if office has imposed limits on how liberal that can be – on national security and much of foreign policy he seems to have conceded to the right. What American newspaper columnists have referred to as a broad bipartisan foreign policy consensus that Obama has come to represent is another way of pointing to his inability to break from Bush-era policies. His style may be different but in substance Obama's approach reflects substantial continuity with the past.

From the failure to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo to the near certain reversal of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other alleged conspirators of 9/11 in civilian courts, Obama's approach is increasingly indistinguishable from that pursued by Bush. He has chosen to escalate the war in Afghanistan rather than seek a negotiated end to the conflict. He has intensified drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas. He has stepped up pressure on Iran by embarking on a fourth round of sanctions. These policies have disappointed Obama's liberal supporters but won approval from the right-wing.

He has failed to face down the Israeli government to halt its settlement policy. The issue turned Vice-President Joe Biden's recent visit into a disaster – leaving it to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to deliver a sharp rebuke to the Israeli government and describe its behaviour as insulting. Obama himself remained distanced from the twists and turns of Washington's diplomacy in the Middle East. The lack of coherent engagement and an inability to stand up to Israel's bullying tactics has contributed to Obama's diminished clout in the region.

A third area where Obama's domestic preoccupations may have had foreign policy consequences is what a prominent American columnist recently drew attention to. Writing in the Washington Post, Jackson Diel pointed to Obama's lack of interest in forging personal relations with foreign leaders. Posing the question 'where are Obama's foreign confidants?' he found there were virtually none.

Others emphasise that when Obama has needed to engage a foreign leader he has frequently left that to members of his team and often avoided working the phones himself.

The disinclination to forge any personal relationship with foreign leaders may be more a function of Obama's personality than the burden of domestic involvements. Those who know him say the cerebral president lacks the personal touch. Many point to a paradox about his leadership: a tireless campaigner and effective communicator who made inspirational speeches during the election but who has in power acted in a professorial manner.

Another paradox may yet reveal itself with time. If President Obama finds policy wins to be elusive on the domestic front he might yet turn to foreign policy to try to show some achievement. This could make him far more visible on the world stage than he has been so far. But whether his administration is able to score any meaningful foreign policy success is another matter especially when the US ability to determine outcomes abroad has waned so significantly.
 

JAISWAL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,527
Likes
1,027
Indo-US relation geting setback due to new policies of Barak obama

According to this very artical the newly developed india usa strategic relation is getting a huge set-back what u say
 

gogbot

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
937
Likes
120
When they want to they know where to find us.

Until then they can respectfully stay out of our way as much a humanly possible.

Its not like they intend to do some U-turn.

They have their own problems to worry about.
we have ours

Mid-level relations are still going on.

America is the one who has to take these relations forward, we just have to wait.
 

JAISWAL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,527
Likes
1,027
Thats a good point off view sir
They r the one who had to responce and respect the relation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top