Leon Panetta visits India - boost in Indo-US defence ties ?

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Question and Answer session with Leon E. Panetta, Defence Secretary, United States at IDSA

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Panetta Spells Out five-point US Defence Strategy for Asia Pacific

June 6, 2012

New Delhi: Laying at rest the apprehension that the US will use India in its strategy to contain China, US Secretary of Defence, Mr Leon E Panetta, in a major speech at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) on June 6, 2012, said "as the United States and India deepen our defence partnerships with each other, both of us will also seek to strengthen our relations with China. We recognise that China has a critical role to play in advancing security and prosperity in this region"

In an answer to a query, Mr Panetta clarified five points of the US Strategy towards Asia pacific. These are: The US will maintain agile, flexible and deployable force; it will focus on tension points in the Pacific and the Middle East; it will maintain presence in the rest of the world, following the principle of rotation of forces and building partnerships; it will seek to confront at least two conflicts at the same time and ensure victory; and finally it will invest in new areas to deal with issues like Cyber security, space security and special forces.

Speaking further, Mr Panetta praised India's support towards USA's effort in gradually handing over Afghanistan the responsibility of security governance and economic affairs and urged the Indian leadership to "continue with additional support to Afghanistan through trade and investment, reconstruction and help for security forces."

Terming relationship with Pakistan as complicated for both India and US, Mr Panetta emphasised on working towards improving ties with Pakistan. He praised India and Pakistan's efforts towards normalizing trade relations, a process which he said was a key towards resolving their differences and in helping Pakistan turn around its economy and counter extremism within its borders. He hinted that US Drone attacks against terrorists in FATA region will continue as the US will not shy away from defending its own "sovereignty".

"America's involvement in Asia has an important past" he insisted, "but a more important future" Speaking on Indo US relations, he said that the two nations share a strong commitment to a set of principles that help maintain security and prosperity. He added that both the nations face many similar security challenges from violent extremism and terrorism to piracy on the high seas and from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to regional instability. "Handling these challenges requires a forward looking vision for our defence partnerships and a plan for advancing it month by month or year by year" he said.

Speaking further on Indo-US Defence partnership he said that the expanded military exercises, defence sales and intelligence sharing are key examples of the relationship's maturation. "We have also increased our defence relationship from virtually nothing early in the last decade to sales worth over $8 Billion today, he emphsised."

Though the two nations may not agree on every solution to the challenges, Mr Panetta expressed hope that both India and US will continue to draw closer together because they "share same values, same challenges and threats and the same vision of a just stable and peaceful regional order.

Panetta Spells Out five-point US Defence Strategy for Asia Pacific | Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Panetta's visit works to India's advantage

Merriam-Webster defines 'lynch pin' as a "locking pin inserted crosswise (as through the end of an axle or shaft)" – as something that "serves to hold together parts or elements that exist or function as a unit." In essence, lynch pin – Americans call it 'linch pin' – is a person or thing that "holds something together: the most important part of a complex situation or system", as Learner's Dictionary explains.

The visiting United States Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta put the loaded expression to good use at a speech in Delhi on Wednesday. He said:

"America is at a turning point. After a decade of war, we are developing a new defense strategy – a central feature of which is a 'rebalancing' toward the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, we will expand our military partnerships and our presence in the arc of extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia.

"Defense cooperation with India is a linch pin in this strategy. India is one of the largest and most dynamic countries in the region and the world, with one of the most capable militaries. India also shares with the United States a strong commitment to a set of principles that help maintain international security and prosperity."

Visiting American dignitaries habitually use eye-catching idiom as part of public diplomacy to catch the attention of their Indian audience. But by any benchmark, Panetta raised the bar of rhetoric. The Indian pundits and think tankers are sure to purr over the word 'linch pin' for weeks and months to come.

What Panetta implied was that India holds the pride of place in the US regional strategies in Asia. Ironically, what he probably didn't mean and ended up inadvertently was to imply also that without India playing ball, the US' military strategy of 'pivot' to Asia, which the Pentagon unveiled in January, might unravel. In either case, the reference is clearly to India's growing military prowess and capability, the 'inter-operability' between the US and Indian forces, and common strategies and military doctrines.

Panetta paid no attention to India's status as 'emerging power' in the global economy. Plainly put, what Panetta implied was that for any US containment strategy toward China to work, India should move alongside in lockstep.

This proposition puts an enormous burden on the Indian policymakers. From available accounts of Panetta's interactions in New Delhi, his interlocutors refused to react. Some well-informed media sources with good access to the Indian defence establishment, however, maintain that A. K. Antony would have conveyed to Panetta Delhi's reservations regarding the US' 'rebalancing' strategy.

In sum, Indians has resorted to strategic ambiguity. This is just as well and could only have been expected. Traditionally, India has eschewed any bloc mentality. To name India as 'linch pin' in someone else's strategy was not probably the smartest thing to do.

Significantly, New Delhi also received a tantalizing overture from China on Wednesday. According to the Indian briefings, the Chinese vice-premier Le Keqiang pledged to the visiting Indian external affairs minister S. M. Krishna in Beijing to "work together with India to maintain strategic communication, improve political mutual trust, and appropriately address disputes and safeguard the peace and tranquility in border areas to advance the bilateral relationship to a new phase."

In response, Krishna vowed that the Sino-Indian relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. These are indeed big statements – coming from Li, who is widely regarded as the likely nominee to replace Wen Jiabao, and from Krishna who would have known that Panetta met with the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh just the previous day.

India faces a choice: be a cog in the wheel of the US' Asia-Pacific strategy or be a wheel by itself with a dynamics of its own. The choice is going to be rather easy for the Indian policymakers to make.

To be sure, the American pundits will try to convince the Indians that it is a charming experience to be a 'lynch pin' of the US' global strategies. They might introduce disquieting thoughts that China doesn't view India as an equal, whereas the US treats India as an equal partner. In fact, two prominent American diplomat-scholars who specialize on South Asia have just fired the first salvo that although India is taken "more seriously" now in China than before, it is "still not seen as an equal."

It might seem a battle for India's soul has begun, but actually that isn't the case. The Indian policymakers do not need America's South Asia hands to educate them in Sinology. On the contrary, they have a mind of their own and are clear about India's priorities. They are also skilled enough in international diplomacy to leverage advantages for India in a fluid international situation. Conceivably, Panetta's visit may have created a "win-win" situation for India in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region.

Even as Panetta was in town, Dr. Singh took a very important strategy meeting in Delhi on Wednesday with India's economic czars to deliberate how to revive India's growth story. Dr. Singh's recipe is that infrastructure development is a key part of the Indian strategy to boost investment and growth in these "turbulent" times. Dr. Singh has set an investment target of rupees 2,000,000 million (approx. $ 40 billion) in the current financial year alone to spur the economy to preform at a higher trajectory of nine percent.

This is where China comes in. Beijing is signaling readiness to boost investments in India's infrastructure and telecom projects. The head of China Development Bank Chen Yuan is on record that the financial institution, which is already involved in $4.4 billion worth projects in India, is keen to expand its engagement in India.

Clearly, Washington chose an awkward moment to announce its "rebalancing" to Asia. India is going to be cautious about the US enterprise to rally the Asian nations and with the hope of arresting the decline in its influence and to counter the cascading influence of China. India will be chary of identifying with such a plank with overt or covert "anti-China" orientation. Apart from the centrality that India traditionally attaches to strategic autonomy in the core areas of its foreign and security policies, one compelling factor in the near term is going to be the imperatives of India's economic development. India cannot and will not offend China at a juncture when China could help it with its economic development.

Besides, the Sino-Indian relationship is steadily improving. This was much in evidence from Krishna's remarks following the meeting with LI in Beijing yesterday and with his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi today. On its part, China also seems to appreciate the directions of India's policies with regard to the US' 'rebalancing' of military assets to the Asia-Pacific. The balance sheet of the recent years shows that Indian diplomats have handled the interplay of the vectors of competition and cooperation in the Sino-Indian relationship exceedingly well – almost optimally.

On the whole, therefore, Panetta's visit to Delhi works to India's advantage. Washington has, evidently, worn on its sleeve the privileged status it accords to India as a partner. When a superpower does that on its own volition, it doesn't do India any harm, to say the least. Again, Panetta repeatedly stressed the US' keenness to participate in India's military modernization program. He also took note more than once that the US will be willing to liberalize the regime for transfer of military technology to India and to initiate the necessary steps in this direction so that from a transactional relationship of selling weapons to India, the two countries can graduate into an advanced form of defence cooperation in terms of joint design and co-production of weapons. This is something that India also has been pressing for. The forthcoming US-India Strategic Dialogue in Washington on June 13 is sure to deliberate on this topic further.

Evidently, India also stands to gain from the intensification of military exercises with the US. Last year alone, over 50 military exercises were held. Panetta spoke highly of the increase in the scope and complexity of these military exercises.

However, India's gain isn't Washington's loss by any reckoning. The ground reality is that India has become a valued customer for the US' arms manufacturers. The deals are highly lucrative for the US and they create jobs in America, which is a top priority for the Administration. In the past 11 years, India bought around $8.5 billion worth of military equipment from the US. The US officials accompanying Panetta were candid about the defence secretary's mission to Delhi. A senior defense official told the Defense News magazine, "We are going to be basically trying to figure out now and over the coming years how we keep moving our bilateral defence trade relationship forward"¦ We want to talk about high-tech cooperation. We want to talk about a lot of places this relationship can go. Those will be advances that flow out over years."

Panetta said the US-India defence relationship "can and should become more strategic, more practical, and more collaborative" – in terms of "concrete steps" through military exercises and exchanges; and, advanced research and development, sharing of technologies and joint production of defence articles. He observed, "At a practical level, our [US-Indian] defence partnership is coming of age. Expanded military exercises, defence sales, and intelligence sharing are key examples of the relationship's maturation." He expressed satisfaction that the US' military sales to India are "growing rapidly"; while, in terms of building collaboration, "we have some early successes and are poised to embark on technology-sharing, co-production and other initiatives that will be a great value to each of our nations."

From the Indian viewpoint, it also has ambitious plans of developing an arms-manufacturing industry. How the Indian ambitions and US objectives mesh in the coming period will be the point to watch. (Although it is not strictly within the domain of the Pentagon, Panetta did make a pointed intervention with the Indian leadership with regard to India's nuclear liability legislation, which hinders the US nuclear industry from securing billions of dollars worth business in the Indian market.)

In geopolitical terms, what stands out in the final reckoning as Panetta left Delhi today is the alacrity with which India has transferred the "synergy" from this latest US-India discourse to Krishna who attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's [SCO] summit in Beijing.

Addressing the SCO summit meeting on Thursday, Krishna said, "The most important security challenge we face today relates to Afghanistan, which lies in the heart of Asia and is a bridge, connecting not just Central and South Asia but also Eurasia and the Middle East. The SCO provides a promising alternative regional platform to discuss the rapidly changing Afghan situation." Things have never been spelt out so directly and with such clarity by India in regard of the SCO's role in Afghanistan. And it comes at a juncture when the SCO's new motto is that the initiative for finding solution to the problems of the region should invariably lie with the countries of the region.

Panetta's visit works to India's advantage | Russia & India Report
 

Air

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
14
Likes
2
U.S Defence Secretary Meets Antony, Discusses Security and Strategic Ties

The Indian Defence Minister AK Antony has held a meeting with his visiting US counterpart Leon Panetta in New Delhi where India's Defence acquisitions and its role in the region were discussed. The US Secretary of Defence has concluded his two day visit to India and met the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon earlier as well and discussed the Indo-US Defence cooperation.

Continue Reading :- http://www.defencenow.com/news/716/us-defence-secretary-panetta-meets-antony
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
That is all well and good but how will we have leverage on China to force the detente? I love my country but I would be foolish not to recognise that China is economically and militarily much better than us at present. This is where balancing ties with the US comes into play.

AT a smaller scale, we see how Nepal or Sri Lanka for example play India and China against each other and gather benefits from both. That is how we have to look at the US and China triangle.

For the next century, US, China and India will have a trilateral relationship and it would be India's interest to have close ties with the US so as to achieve that detente with China. Any whiff of India getting close to the US makes China come back to India with conciliatory attitudes. Wether it be the nuke deal and now with the Asia pivot that the US is doing. China will desperately want India to maintain an independant stance. And we should. But we should try to extract concessions from the Chinese, economic, territorial, strategic e.t.c. for holding that independant stance.

IF just jump on the independant bandwagon, then the Chinese will not have any incentive to achive a detente with India.
I agree with you, which is why I clearly said that the removal of all Western influence from Asia should be a long-term goal for India. In the short-term, it would be in India's interest to engage in limited cooperation with the U.S. vis-a-vis China. Once the detente with China is achieved (which I am confident it will be; it is not in China's interest to have a hostile country of over 1 billion people with a rapidly expanding economy on its southern doorstep), we can expect a marked decline in Indo-U.S. cooperation, as we become a threat to U.S. interests as well if we become too powerful in the region (cf. Anglo-Japanese Alliance in the early 1900s and its subsequent discontinuation). As for when this turning point will be reached, my wild guess would be sometime in the 2030s or 40s, give or take a few years. At this point, it would be best for us to significantly expand cooperation with China on a variety of fronts, and realign ourselves globally with the goal of bringing out a multi-polar world; this means expanding trade and diplomatic relations with other semi-peripheral nations and and potential "poles" like Brazil and South Africa.

One thing that is clear, is that the continuation of the current Western-dominated world, where less than 20% of the world's population consume some 80% of the world's resources, is in the long-term interest of neither India nor China. These two countries together make up over two-fifths of the world's population, and as our economies continue to grow we will need a much bigger pie of the world's resources than what we have now. This means that, inevitably, we will both come into conflict (though not necessarily fight a war) with the West. On this point, I would like to further clarify my vision of India's long-term goals: we should aim for nothing less than the dismantlement of the global uni-polar world order as it currently stands, and the replacement of this order by a new, mulit-polar world order. In the Asian context at least, this would amount to nothing less than the resurrection of the pre-colonial world order.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
One thing that is clear, is that the continuation of the current Western-dominated world, where less than 20% of the world's population consume some 80% of the world's resources, is in the long-term interest of neither India nor China.
The statistic has little meaning when productivity is left out of the equation.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
The statistic has little meaning when productivity is left out of the equation.
Do you disagree that the rising economies of India and China (among others) will lead to increased competition for resources on a global scale? Because that is the crux of my point.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
The statistic has little meaning when productivity is left out of the equation.
He is not blaming the West. He is just saying that rise of India & China will bring them in direct conflict with the west for the finite resources of our planet.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
He is not blaming the West. He is just saying that rise of India & China will bring them in direct conflict with the west for the finite resources of our planet.
Yes, thank you for understanding my point.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
How the US is Pressuring India to Enlist in its Quest for Global Dominance

How the US is Pressuring India to Enlist in its Quest for Global Dominance


The US has sought an alliance with India to pressure China and to isolate Iran.


A mid-level officer of the Indian Foreign Ministry told me that he was startled by the language used by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta during his visit to India on June 6. India, Panetta said, is the "lynchpin" in US plans to "rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region". The officer said that at one point Panetta had said India is the US "doorway into Asia". At least two of the Indian officials in the room later joked that he should have said that India is the US's doormat into Asia.

Panetta had come to Delhi with a brief that was uncomplicated but not conducive to peace. Panetta's objectives, and that of the third India-US Strategic Dialogue (which began on June 13), seem obliged to isolate three major actors in Asia: China, Iran and Pakistan. The "rebalancing" is not intended to bring these crucial countries to the table to discuss areas of common interest, such as the imbroglio in Afghanistan, the question of energy security and the unsettled border and security disputes between these countries.

The US has sought an alliance with India for the past decade with the aim of putting pressure on China, of balancing out its reliance upon Pakistan's geographic location, and of isolating Iran in the forums of the non-aligned world (as well as enhancing access for US firms into the Indian market). These are not pathways to peace. They are precisely the opposite.

Afghanistan

Panetta's short-term objective in Delhi was to bring India more firmly into its Afghan operations. He came to India seeking Indian monetary and military assistance for the Afghan mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Indian tanks are not going to be airlifted into Kabul anytime soon, although this remains on the agenda. As a precursor, the Indians were asked to increase their reconstruction commitments.

Whether Panetta's goal is to actually have Indian tanks in Afghanistan seems unclear. What is obvious, however, is that this is an unsubtle way to put pressure on Islamabad to desist from its refusal to allow NATO material to transit from Karachi's port through Torkham into Afghanistan. The US is currently spending upwards of $100 million per day more than beforehand to get its goods into Afghanistan through Central Asia. During Panetta's Delhi visit, the US fired its drones for the ninth time since the Chicago North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in May, killing three people. The continuation of the drone program has soured the relationship between Islamabad and Washington. Pakistan's Asif Ali Zardari is locked into his presidential residence, afraid of his people and terrified of their reaction if he gives in, once more, to the US.

What Zardari and the Pakistani military fear more than their own people, however, is the US pivot toward India. The sense that India has used its relationship with Kabul to encircle Pakistan is very strong amongst the ruling circles. Panetta might be playing up the US request for Indian extension into Afghanistan to pressure Pakistan to open up the doors for NATO trucks.

Nevertheless, to facilitate the short-term objectives of the Obama administration, Panetta is stoking the flames between India and Pakistan. India's natural policy should be to calm tensions with Islamabad rather than to be yoked into a cynical ploy to increase anxiety for US ends. But this policy is of a piece with the US-orchestrated tension between Iran and its neighbors. That the US can assume that there can be peace in Afghanistan without Iranian, Indian, Pakistani and Chinese cooperation is remarkable.

Iran

In 2004, the US opened a new door to India that occasioned Delhi closing its own open door with Iran. The George W Bush administration wanted India to scuttle or put on hold its natural gas pipeline project that would have run from Iran to India via Pakistan (for good reason was it called the Peace Pipeline). Instead, the US promised a new strategic partnership with India, including the provision of nuclear fuel, if India would vote with the US against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005.

A summary cable from US Ambassador India David Mulford to the State Department put the case for a quid pro quo plainly, "Many in Congress and throughout Washington, [Mulford] reminded [Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam] Saran, were watching India's treatment of Iran prior to Congressional debate on the US-India civilian nuclear initiative."

Why was India's vote so important?

"India had a key voice in the [Non-Aligned Movement] and could swing opinion in the [IAEA Board of Governors]; it was time, [Mulford] said, for us to know where India stood." India voted with the US against Iran, earned a nuclear deal and started a US-India Strategic Dialogue (the first round began formally in 2010). The nuclear deal led, during this Strategic Dialogue, to a memorandum for Westinghouse (Toshiba) to build a 1000 mw reactor in Gujarat.

During the Obama years, the Strategic Dialogue picked up and so did the pressure on Indo-Iranian relations. India is a major importer of Iranian oil. The US sanctions on Iran exceed the UN sanctions. India accepted the latter, but not the former. Nevertheless, concerted pressure from the US pushed India to reduce its imports from Iran - Iran used to cover 20% of Indian fuel needs, and now covers just under 10%. The shortfall was made up by Saudi exports to India (the India-Saudi partnership was inked in 2010), although Indian processers are geared to Iranian and not Saudi oil.

Two days before the current India-US Strategic Dialogue, the US government issued waivers to six countries that had showed good faith attempts to reduce their commercial interactions with Iran. Among those countries was India. "It was a great relief," said a member of the Indian Foreign Ministry. Even though India had said it would ignore the US sanctions, it had become plain that Washington was not going to tolerate this. The waiver allowed the US and India to go forward with their longer-term harmonization despite this objective roadblock.

That longer-term project circles around China. It did not go unnoticed that the one Asian country that continues to buy Iranian oil and was not given a US waiver was China.

China

The language at the Strategic Dialogue was boilerplate, almost generated by a computer generated program: "shared democratic values", "diplomatic priorities", "strategic fundamentals", and "convergence of values". This was the least informative part of the conversation. The more revealing statement came from Panetta on June 6 in Delhi. "We will expand our military partnerships and our presence in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia." The putative matter here is piracy and terrorism.

Panetta's "arc" stretches from the US bases in Japan to the new marine presence in Australia to the Indian and US warships that patrol the Indian Ocean through the US bases in Central Asia. NATO's program, "Partners Across the Globe," includes Mongolia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This list runs from East to West as does Panetta's "arc," with China inside the ring, encircled.

This network has created anxiety in Beijing. When Panetta was in Delhi, India's Foreign Minister S M Krishna was in China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting. Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang took Krishna aside and told him that the real relationship of the 21st century was not between the US and India, but between India and China. Krishna was forced to agree, pointing out that India and China share "one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world".

US arms sales to India have increased since 2002, including aircraft to increase Indian strategic lift capability and radar detection and maritime surveillance. Indian ships are now patrolling the Straits of Malacca, the crucial transit point for Chinese goods ships (including oil tankers). Since 2001, the US and India have conducted more than 50 military exercises to increase "functional interoperability" between their armed forces. The Strategic Dialogue pledged to increase these maneuvers.

Panetta told the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses that the US would increase arms sales despite unsigned agreements on logistics support and transfer of secure and encrypted communications systems. He also said that the US was prepared to begin joint-production ventures for armaments in India.

It would be a disaster for Asia if India were to fully adopt the US perspective, which is not to build peace in the region but to use its military force multiplier to contain Chinese economic ambitions. The myopic policy toward Iran means that that US has inflamed tensions in West Asia, by allowing the Gulf Arabs to paint the Arab Spring as a Shia-Sunni tussle rather than as a popular uprising against authoritarian regimes. As long as the US believes that the pressure cooker on Syria impacts on Iranian ambitions in the region, ordinary Syrians will suffer with their lives.

The failure to engage with Iran as a player in the region means that the US loses a major partner for the stability of Afghanistan and Iraq. There can be no peaceful solution for Afghanistan without an entente between its neighbors, including Iran and China.

By many indications, India has accepted the broad policy orientation of the US on Iran, and to a lesser extent on Afghanistan. On China there is less harmony. Defense Minister A K Anthony told the press shortly after Panetta's visit that there is a need to "strengthen the multilateral security architecture" and to "move at a pace comfortable to all countries concerned."

The sliver of light between India and the US on China gives hope that India has not fully renounced its commitments to multilateralism and to regionalism. It is not yet the doormat of US ambitions.

Vijay Prashad is Professor and Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, United States. This spring he will publish two books: Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press) and Uncle Swami: South Asians in America Today (New Press). He is the author of Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World(New Press), which won the 2009 Muzaffar Ahmed Book Prize.
 

sukhish

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
1,321
Likes
312
time for the two brothers ( India and pakistan ) to form a union and take on this world. enough of this U.S ditating terms
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
panetta's visit is part of the overall continually improving relationship between the two - india has displayed wisdom not to up the freindship too fast - however from time to time has not taken advantage of some US offers which are really a good deal for india - nevertheless the realtionshiip between the two is progressing well .
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top