Obama's India Visit

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

Who's The Visitor Next Door?

In visiting India, Barack Obama will leave lots of Pakistanis feeling slighted. How is Islamabad coping?

For Washington, it has always been a deft tightrope walk between India and Pakistan, which in their ardour for America often resemble two spoilt children engaged in fierce competition to win their father's affection. Perhaps it was this jealousy between Islamabad and New Delhi that prompted President Barack Hussein Obama to casually drop in at the October 23 meeting of Pakistani and American officials engaged in the third Pak-US Strategic Dialogue in Washington. Quite gratuitously, Obama declared, "I am the first US president who has visited Pakistan before taking office. Next year, I will pay an exclusive visit to Pakistan and want to invite President (Asif Ali) Zardari to visit Washington." The American president was referring to his college days, during which he had accepted a Pakistani friend's offer to travel in Sindh, and also to his mother's brief stint of voluntary work in the Punjab province. He recalled those days for the participants in the strategic dialogue meeting.

Obama's effusiveness was obviously guided by the awareness that his forthcoming visit to India had created some heartburn among Pakistanis, particularly among those who had read on the internet the Indian media's interpretation of the exclusion of Pakistan from the president's travel in Asia, which has been portrayed as a snub to Islamabad. In many ways, this heartburn is understandable—for Pakistan has paid in blood to contribute to America's war on terror in Afghanistan and contiguous areas, and its government has courted obloquy in conducting military operations against its own people. To pay such a price for the promise of a presidential visit next year was rightly perceived as a lollipop.

Asking the people to treat the lollipop as just that, one Mir Kamil wrote a letter to the editor of The News: "As the great poet said, 'Dil ke behlane ko Ghalib yeh khayal achha hai'." An SMS doing the rounds here mocks Obama severely: "Here's a black American, born a Muslim, converted to Christianity, and refusing to visit the Sikh Golden Temple because he might be mistaken for a Muslim if he covered his head!"

Perhaps this simmering anger prompted Obama to telephone Zardari, in an attempt to reassure him that his trip to India, billed as both historic and the longest, shouldn't be perceived as neglecting Pakistan, that Indo-US relations didn't affect America's partnership with Pakistan. But former military intelligence chief Gen (retd) Asad Durrani told Outlook: "Actually, these types of visits are not welcome. We saw Bill Clinton drop by for a few hours. Then George Bush came calling to see for himself how committed we were to the war against terror." With American drones bombing Pakistan and inflicting casualties, Obama's visit wouldn't have yielded any benefits, says Durrani, adding, "It's only when the US leaves Afghanistan and Pakistan puts its house in order that a presidential visit would amount to anything."

Analysts feel that Obama is likely to take America's relations with India to another level, beyond even what Clinton and Bush managed. Tariq Fatimi, a former ambassador, says, "America's relations with India are on a completely different level. There is great emphasis on trade and investment and we see both sides taking the relationship to the next strategic level. With Pakistan, in contrast, the emphasis is only on combating terrorism and its role in Afghanistan. India is seen as a global partner cooperating with the US in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Thirty years from now, during a China-US conflict, the US will be looking at India as an ally."

But others like Pakistan Muslim League (Q) leader Mushahid Hussain differ. He says Islamabad holds too many cards to be ignored just like that. "Through its army, Pakistan can help provide a dignified, honourable exit for the US from Afghanistan. Obama's political future is dependent on cooperation from Pakistan," Hussain told Outlook. He says Pakistan is also deftly positioning itself for the years ahead, in which the US won't be around in Afghanistan. "Despite America's opposition, we signed on the 'peace' pipeline with Iran. With China, our relationship is more robust and resilient than ever, more so given the war of words orchestrated by Washington and New Delhi with Beijing." In other words, a strategic rearrangement in the region could see Pakistan bind itself to China to counter growing Indo-US relations.

Obama's exclusion of Pakistan from his Asian trip has prompted many in Islamabad to play the Kashmir card. Already people are advocating that Jammu and Kashmir should observe a complete shutdown during Obama's stay in India so as to drive home the message that his administration shouldn't brush under the carpet the human rights violations in the Valley. Former foreign secretary Riaz Khokar says, "If there is a complete shut-down in Kashmir during Obama's visit to India, it will be a slap on his face." He also accused India of convincing the Obama administration to not include Pakistan in his itinerary.

Pakistan has stepped on the Kashmir pedal. Some 4,000 children of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir for India) have written a letter to Obama saying they are the worst victims of the conflict. Mushahid Hussain thinks what is pivotal to Pakistan is whether Obama can muster the will to deliver on Kashmir as he had promised during his presidential election campaign. "This is important for two reasons," Hussain says. "First, Kashmir is again on the boil, with an indigenous, Palestine-style intifidah spearheaded by stone-throwing, angry Muslim youth. Second, peace in the region can no longer be compartmentalised—that we seek stability in Kabul, while allowing Kashmir to burn."

But, really, why should Obama visit Pakistan when it is anyway doing his bidding, asks The Nation's editor, Dr Shireen Mazari. "If India is going in for a strong partnership with the US, good luck to them. Obama's visit to Pakistan next year? Who knows who survives this misguided war on terror?"

At least till now, the Pakistan army has refused to accede to America's repeated demand for a military operation in North Waziristan, where Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are said to be holding out. Perhaps Obama will deign to visit Islamabad once it decides to flush out the militants from North Waziristan and kill hundreds of civilians in the process.

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

Namaste India

Barack Obama's nod to India will get us due recognition—if not momentous deals

What India Wants
Heed India's strategic concerns in the region and beyond
Unequivocal support from the US on India's candidature for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
Removal of DRDO and ISRO from the Entities List
Access to dual-use technologies from the US
Bigger role for India in Afghanistan, particularly in the future regime in Kabul
Work with US on poverty alleviation in Africa
Greater access to US markets for Indian goods, services

What Obama Wants
India to play a balancing role so that no one country dominates Asia. A rising China is a worry.
India's crucial support to restore peace, stability in Afghanistan
Opportunity in India's lucrative defence market as New Delhi revamps its armed forces
Access to the Indian market not only for big companies but small and medium enterprises as well
Support on climate change. Also help US in selling its sophisticated green technology.
Enable US firms to sell new seed technology in India
Grab a big share of the Indian civil nuclear market

It isn't every year that the president of the most powerful country comes calling on India. In fact, till a decade ago, most presidents of the United States of America didn't think India even deserved a stopover on their forays into Asia. Then, in 2000, Bill Clinton landed in New Delhi to charm the Indians and create a new mould for Indo-US relations, followed six years later by George W. Bush, who was rated as the best American president for India. In case you think the media should have become accustomed to the visit of American leaders, and are surprised at the buzz over Barack Obama's forthcoming visit to this land of Mahatma Gandhi (whom the American president considers an exemplary leader), then you have quite obviously missed the point: he is the first US president to visit this country in the first half of his first term in office. That by itself is a testimony to the importance of India in the global arena, its gradual rise as a power, its relevance to the superpower that's said to be on a possible decline.

This also explains why Obama's visit has been pitched as a defining moment in Indo-US relations. Forget those trite catchwords—Pakistan, Kashmir et al. Do not search for an idea comparable to the civil nuclear deal, crafted under the Bush administration, before you declare Obama's visit to India a success or otherwise. It's time to think big, sources say, and it can't get bigger than what Obama plans to unfold during his November 6-9 visit: project India as a power with a sinew impressive enough to partner the US not only in Asia but in the entire world, including an emerging Africa partnership.

Two major developments have prompted Obama to try and script a grand leap for India. One, the economic crisis which has cast most western economies into a tailspin. Two, the anxiety among many Asian countries engendered by the rise of an aggressive China. Agrees a senior official in the prime minister's office, "China's rise is the biggest thing that is happening around us." And when such a big change is under way, the Americans have to wake up and take stock.

Obama did this exactly a year ago, embarking on his first trip to Asia that saw him hop from one country to another: Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea. In his Asia Security speech in Tokyo, Obama did not even mention India, not even in passing. This omission, even as he named other Asian powers, was not missed in New Delhi nor among its friends in Washington. Wasn't it terrible diplomacy to ignore India, asked American officials there. As a remedy, he chose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the first state guest of his presidency in November last year. And though Obama, sources say, showed great appreciation of Manmohan's views in their many subsequent meetings on the sidelines of multilateral events, there were many who remained sceptical whether the Indo-US strategic relationship would be elevated to a higher level under his presidency, as had been promised. Former foreign secretary K. Natwar Singh remains doubtful even today. "Borrowing the titles of two famous Charles ****ens novels, I can only describe his visit as 'Great Expectations' which will end up in 'Hard Times'."

A Look At The Presidential To-Do

Nov 6, Mumbai

Lands in Mumbai early on Nov 6 on Air Force One (left). Two other planes ferry 126 journalists and over 250 captains of industry.
18 US military aircraft bring in dismantled choppers, armoured vehicles, communication equipment and security personnel (below left)
Stays at the Taj Mahal Palace (bottom left), Mumbai, one of the sites of the 26/11 attacks. Almost the entire 604-room hotel booked for his entourage; 70 per cent of the staff to be packed off on compulsory leave.
To read out a statement against terror at a small function where he interacts with 26/11 victims
Visit the Gandhi Museum. The Father of the Nation was an inspiration for Obama. Also
celebrate Diwali at a school.
Speak at a summit of the Indian-US business communities
Nov 7, Mumbai

Address a town hall-type meeting at St Xavier's College
Attend a round-table conference on agricultural cooperation and food security
After lunch, leave for Delhi
Nov 7, Delhi

Humayun Tomb to be first port of call in Delhi. Then drive down to Roosevelt House for US ambassador event.
Will stay at Maurya Sheraton. All three wings booked for the Americans. An entire floor reserved for Obama and Michelle.
The Maurya to serve an Obama platter, a mix of special meat, chicken and seafood dishes
Attend a private dinner at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's residence
Nov 8, Delhi

After guard of honour at Rashtrapati Bhavan (below), drives down to Rajghat (bottom) to pay homage to the Mahatma
One-to-one meeting with Manmohan at Hyderabad House, followed by delegation-level talks
Obama and team to attend lunch hosted by PM. After signing agreements, to hold joint press meet.
Address joint special session of Parliament
Attend presidential banquet hosted by Pratibha Patil in the evening. A 20-minute cultural capsule on "essence of India" likely to precede dinner.
Nov 9, Depart

Leaves for Indonesia

In some ways, such scepticism is understandable, considering that Obama zeroed in on India for global partnership as a second choice. He had initially looked upon China as a natural partner with whom America could combine to manage the world. This choice couldn't be faulted. China is crucial to the US, holding as it does over a trillion dollars worth of American treasury bonds and being a partner in a bilateral trade totalling a whopping $330 billion. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China's help is needed to roll back Iran's controversial nuclear programme and deal with a recalcitrant nuclear-armed North Korea.
But then China began flexing its muscle, exploiting the economic crisis to surpass Japan as the world's second-largest economy and then staking unilateral claims over South China Sea and other islands in East and Southeast Asia. The other countries of the region, mostly close allies of the US, were not only alarmed but wondered whether the US was deliberately forsaking its role of a stabiliser in the Asia-Pacific and allowing China to carve its sphere of influence there.
Stung, the US began to cast its net for other options. India suited the American plan well, boasting as it does a large army and a blue-water navy that could ensure China didn't become the sole power to dominate the region, a veritable cradle of growing economies. And so when Obama lands in India, after visiting Rajghat in New Delhi, he and Manmohan will conduct a substantial dialogue on the implications of China's rise for Asia and the world at large. This dialogue, however, doesn't tantamount to forging an alliance against China. Says a senior Indian diplomat, "There's an element of competitiveness in both India and US's relations vis-a-vis China. But this should not be construed as attempts to gang up against China." Never mind that, as a US official points out, "India and the US have together held 50 defence exercises in the past few years, and this is just the beginning." The general wisdom is that instead of talking about containing China, Manmohan and Obama will discuss ways of enhancing their engagement with China.

From Obama's perspective, the second-most important item on his agenda will be to deepen economic cooperation with India. Unable to pull his country out from the economic mire and likely to face reversals in the mid-term elections in November before he flies out for Asia, there are many who feel he will be under pressure to bag lucrative business contracts in India. And though mid-term electoral losses are quite normal for American presidents, the alarmists point to his many statements in which he cited outsourcing of American jobs to India as among the principal causes of unemployment. Officials, therefore, say he will try to gain greater access to the Indian market not only for American behemoths but also for small- and medium-scale enterprises, taking advantage of the buying capacity of the expanding middle class here. This could help Obama to convince people back home that relations with India are crucial to create jobs for Americans.
Agrees Arvind Subramanian, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, "This is a serious issue. The overall climate for openness in the US is not great, especially for issues such as outsourcing. The fact that Indian companies contribute to the US economy helps but it does not fundamentally alter whether or not the US is inclined to take protectionist action."

No wonder, accompanying Obama is a huge business delegation comprising over 250 CEOs. The main focus of the Business Summit in Mumbai will be to contemplate steps for augmenting economic and trade cooperation that remains below $50 billion currently. In addition, the American suppliers will eye the lucrative defence market of India and cash in on New Delhi's drive to acquire sophisticated weaponry. Some arms deals are likely to be finalised during Obama's visit. Having pushed hard for lifting the nuclear apartheid against India, the US will naturally aim to grab a substantial share of the civil nuclear energy market in India, now that the last hurdle in implementing the nuclear deal has been swept aside.
Amidst fervent attempts to woo business in Mumbai, American sources say Obama will be provided a glimpse of India's progress in e-governance and panchayati raj. He's likely to be hooked live to a chaupal in session. Why isn't the media abuzz with speculation about a big-ticket deal? Partly, officials say, this is deliberate, aimed at lowering expectations to avoid disappointment. But the more significant reason is that a big-ticket idea can't be floated every time Indian and American leaders meet, that the nuclear deal was a game-changer and the gains have to be now consolidated, and that the thrust now is to have India and the US enter into global partnership.

To seed this global partnership, there are many Indian proposals on the table. To begin with, there is a desire to get univocal support from the US on India's candidature for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, for inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an India-specific review to remove hurdles in the way of high-tech transfers and taking off Indian organisations like ISRO and DRDO from the Entities List that hobbles them from accessing dual techonology. In addition, there will be an attempt to get the US seriously engaged in India's quest in fields as diverse as civil nuclear energy, green technology, agriculture, weather prediction for enhancing crop production and education.

Obama is expected to carve out a much bigger role for India in the immediate region, and more importantly, across the globe. The two sides are now contemplating to work together for poverty alleviation not only in India but also in the countries of Africa. A substantial role is likely to be defined for India in Afghanistan, testifying to Obama's acceptance that peace and stability there have a direct bearing on India's security.

Obama's presence on Indian soil, more so in Mumbai, which was rocked by terror attacks in 2008, will inevitably drag terrorism into high-level talks. The US president will undertake powerful symbolic acts during his stay here, such as reading out a statement against terrorism and meeting the victims of 26/11. And though serious cooperation on counter-terrorism between India and the US is already under way, it is a moot point whether Washington can really stop Pakistan from supporting anti-India terror groups. The Americans desperately need Islamabad to stabilise Afghanistan, they can't just dump the Pakistanis. Says former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, "I don't think Obama's in a position to control Pakistan and prevent it from being selective in its fight against terrorist groups." Adds former ambassador Naresh Chandra, "Gestures like the recent military aid package to Pakistan only boost the morale of its military establishment. Extract as much from the US on technology, but don't expect much on the Pakistan front."
Ultimately, as the US plans to create space for India to play a global role, New Delhi shouldn't forget that it can't expect others to hold its hand to glory. India will have to understand America's compulsions in Afghanistan, and seize upon other opportunities to raise its profile as a great nation that's devoid of hunger and believes in progress for all.

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

That Elephant In The Middle Of The Room

Change isn't all that easy to come by, as Obama finds at home. Can the India trip provide another historic moment for him, and us?

Twenty-one months ago, a fresh-faced senator from Illinois caught the world's imagination, riding a historic election victory to become the first black president of the United States of America. Barack Obama had then rocked America's political firmament with his stirring oration and message of hope. His victory sent a frisson all the way from Kansas to Kenya. Expectations soared. Obama had, after all, promised change; a change we could believe in.

But ballooning expectations often engender disappointment. A week before he wings his way to India, Obama finds his Democratic Party facing defeat in November's mid-term elections that could cost it control of the House of Representatives, perhaps even the Senate. Always a fighter, Obama has embarked on a last-minute hectic campaign to shore up the party's fortunes.

Missing from his campaign, though, is that magical word, change. On the satirical fake news programme The Daily Show, Obama was asked this week by liberal host Jon Stewart about disenchantment among his supporters. "When we promised during the campaign 'change you can believe in', it wasn't change you can believe in in 18 months," Obama said. It's "'Yes we can', given certain conditions," Stewart said. Obama replied, "It's 'Yes we can', but it's not gonna happen overnight."

Even in the time between the election victory and stepping into office, the president and his team sought to downplay his campaign rhetoric. America then was mired in wars and faced record unemployment. The situation hasn't improved substantially—US troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq and unemployment numbers in some states are in the double digits. The president has, quite understandably, focused on domestic issues. He fought a ferocious battle against Republicans to push through healthcare and financial regulatory reforms, but has also perhaps alienated them for the rest of his term. His attempts to fuel job growth has prompted some to accuse him of protectionism. They have chosen to ignore his campaign promise, also reiterated to Outlook two years ago, of offering tax incentives to companies for creating jobs in the US.

Away from home, Obama's speech in Cairo in June 2009 was meant to be a balm to the pain of Muslims, hate targets after the global violence perpetrated by a band of Islamists. The speech was hailed for its inherent humanity, fanning expectations worldwide. Says Scott Atran, an American anthropologist who has studied terrorist groups, "That speech provided great hope. But since then, there has been no movement, no follow-up." No wonder, says Atran, Obama now often figures near the bottom in polls in the Muslim world on popular leaders. While releasing the findings of an Arab public opinion poll this summer, Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution said that a lack of progress on Israel-Palestinian peace is the main reason for the significant dent in Obama's approval ratings. "This is the prism through which Arabs view the US," he says.
His declining popularity in the Arab world makes it ironical that a small section of Americans still believe their president is Muslim, despite the White House's attempts to scotch this rumour. There were reports (stoutly denied by the White House) that Amritsar was dropped from Obama's India yatra as he feared the image of his visit to the Golden Temple, with his head covered by a mandatory kerchief, would reinforce the erroneous belief about his faith. This problem is thought to be particularly acute as many Americans think Sikhs are Muslim.

In India, though, Obama continues to command tremendous appeal, even though many feel Indo-US relations have stalled under his administration. A report by a bipartisan group, which included Bush administration officials R. Nicholas Burns and Richard Armitage, echoed this sentiment and recommended a "bold leap" forward. "Past projects remain incomplete, few new ideas have been embraced by both sides, and the forward momentum that characterised recent cooperation has subsided," declared a Center for a New American Security (CNAS) report, 'Natural Allies: A Blueprint for the Future of US-India Relations'. Says Richard Fontaine, who's one of the authors of the CNAS report, "The report is not a criticism of Obama or his administration but rather an acknowledgement that the overall relationship has plateaued and needs to be rejuvenated."

However, US officials insist India is among Obama's top priorities. They cite facts in support of their assertion—the Obama administration's first state dinner was in honour of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the president is visiting India in his first term in office, unlike his two immediate predecessors—George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Even Fontaine insists, "These steps have created the potential for an important, even historic, next step in the relationship, should both sides seize an ambitious, substantive agenda. The question is, what will that agenda look like?"

Sumit Ganguly, visiting Fellow at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, isn't convinced that the Obama administration has managed to grasp the significance of a strategic partnership with India. "That said, India, for its part, is also at fault," Ganguly says, pointing out that New Delhi has furnished a veritable laundry list of wishes and demands to the US but has failed to spell out what it could do for the Americans. Ganguly explains, "Unless policymakers in New Delhi can proffer a set of viable options for the consideration of the administration I fear the significance of the strategic partnership will be quite limited," he added.

Countering the criticism of those who accuse Obama of not doing enough to enhance US-India relations, George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says in his report, 'Toward Realistic US-India Relations', "Pundits of this persuasion...complain that Obama's team has tried too hard to cooperate with China in addressing regional and global challenges and has not done enough to bolster India." In reality, Perkovich adds, the US can only contribute marginally to India's success or failure. "The actions of Indians at home and abroad will determine which path India takes."

In these days of soaring unemployment here, it's perhaps time to tweak that popular phrase to say, ask not what the US has done for India, but what India has done for the US.

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

So What Gives?

India Inc is too pragmatic to be overly expectant from Obama's visit

US sets sights on

FDI in multi-brand retailing
lMore stringent Indian IPR laws, copyright compliance
Greater market access; lower import duties in general
Dilution of nuclear mishap liability
India's wishlist

Removal of US restrictions on dual technology transfer
Clear roadmap on science & technology, agriculture collaboration
"Totalisation agreement" to protect interest of IT workers
Greater market access for goods that are exported
The likeliest outcome

FDI in multi-brand retailing likely—but by end of the year
Indian assurance of greater compliance of IPR norms
US will not ease fears on outsourcing
Indian imports without adequate safeguards are unlikely
Some easing of nuclear liability regime likely
***

How times have changed. The buzz leading up to the US presidental visit—one accompanied by the largest ever corporate delegation, representing 250 companies—is strangely muted. In times gone by, the sheer presence of all those suits lording over empires that dwarf the GDPs of most countries would have been enough to satiate India Inc. But the twist is that Barack Obama's visit is being seen through a prism of hope—for America Inc. So, then, a slew of mega trade and investment deals promising to sustain thousands of jobs for Americans will be Indian corporates' Diwali gift to the US president.

Whether the visit will remove the major irritants to the two-way trade in goods and services, including lifting curbs on dual use high-tech trade, is anybody's guess. Not many are banking on it, given Obama's diminished strength in the US Congress. The recent US action to check outsourcing of jobs shows which constituency Obama is aiming to please. Given that both countries already don't see eye to eye on many issues—like the Doha Round of WTO negotiations or commitments to address climate change concerns—it would be unrealistic to expect too much from Obama's visit. Will this then be a symbolic, formal visit?

Dr Anwarul Hoda, ICRIER acting director and a WTO expert, is cautiously optimistic. He says bilateral negotiations tend to yield more ground as "much more straight talking is done" unlike in multilateral negotiations, where India and the US have often been on opposing sides. But given the long-standing and contentious nature of issues on the table—from restrictions on dual technology transfers, to the Indian IT sector's worries about persecution—there is little optimism among experts that Obama may yield ground at this juncture when his popularity in the US seems to be on the wane.
On the other hand, the US continues to apply pressure on India to yield some ground on the nuclear mishap liability regime (brought into being by its new domestic legislation) to fully indemnify American companies and hence enable them to do business—though the politico-legal window for this is rather constricted. On FDI in multi-brand retail, the direction is clear when Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia states, "If modern retail is good for India, I don't see why we should oppose FDI in multi-brand retail." However, fear of it being seen as a US-pushed move may see the government defer an announcement to sometime later this year.
The irony is that equations have clearly changed. "Unlike 20 years back, today due to the huge size of our market, India has a strong bargaining power next only to China, so we should not give in to things," stresses Hoda. From being India's top trading partner till a few years back, the US has been overtaken by the UAE and China. Many other countries are fast catching up. Is it necessary then to subvert Indian interests to woo US technology and trade, when Indian companies continue to face several non-tariff barriers?

With the government being guarded, experts are wary about speculating about possible outcomes. But they agree that India is better placed than four years back (when former US president George Bush visited) to concretise many of the collaboration agreements (some signed over a decade back) that seem to have gone nowhere. "There are a lot of bilateral cooperation agreements like in science and technology, agriculture and energy, which can be fruitful if India can take advantage. But the roadmap is not clear," states Biswajit Dhar, director-general of global think-tank ris.

Since 1992, when the US investment in India was negligible, the two-way investment flow has grown in double digits and is currently around $11 billion each way. Bilateral trade has also been increasing in double digits to reach $43 billion, though this is less than one-tenth of US trade with China. For the bilateral trade and investment to realise its potential, experts feel many niggling issues need to be resolved. "While India is in a better position now geopolitically, much depends on the capacity and leadership to negotiate," says political and economic commentator S. Gurumurthy.

However, Ron Somers, president of US-India Business Council, is optimistic that Obama's visit will trigger "positive movement on export controls and dual-use licensing policies specific to India", helping them become "strategic partners". Speaking from the US, Somers is banking on Obama's visit to reinvigorate the bilateral investor treaty, "which will be the baby step towards what could become a free trade agreement". Similar optimism is voiced by FICCI's Amit Mitra who says the fact that "developing economies like India have become the centre-point in the US approach to global economy" has ensured that India now sits at the top table in global negotiations.

Just as the US is seeking greater Indian investments to create jobs, India too is banking on funds flow to bridge infrastructure gaps. Stating that "investment is not negotiated", the Planning Commission deputy chairman points out that "any significant reduction in technology restrictions would be a very positive outcome for India". He is banking on the Indo-US CEO Forum proposal of setting up an infrastructure fund, if approved, to help bridge widening infrastructure gaps.

Would India then be able to get its way in pushing for clean energy, critical technology and boosting its exports? It's not clear. CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat says many of the economic issues of concern to India "are not likely to be addressed during Obama's visit". A sampling of deals in offing—from the $917-million export deal from Bucyrus International to India's Sasan Power or Boeing's $2.7-billion deal for supply of aircraft to Indian low-cost airlines—shows which way the wind is blowing.

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

It Takes An Indian Village

US presidents have always liked their little photo-ops in Indian 'gaons', the villagers don't mind the spot in the sun either

In Nayla village, about an hour's drive from Jaipur, everyone knows Chelsea. Only, this Chelsea is no Clinton. Waif-thin, shy and quietly enjoying the perks of her unusual name, Chelsea Chaturvedi knows nothing about her celebrity namesake except that she's the daughter of a US president who came calling in March 2000, days after she was born. Yet, ironically, this 10-year-old, who was Chetan Kumari before her zari craftsman father got carried away by the Clinton aura and decided to rename her Chelsea, keeps the memory of Bill Clinton's visit to Nayla alive.

Not that the villagers need reminding, of course. Mohini Devi Gupta, a plainspeaking housewife, appears a tad tired, in fact, of recounting the tale. Yes, she had tied a rakhi on Clinton's wrist; yes, she had performed the mandatory aarti-tika ritual; and yes, she had danced with the world's most talked about leader. Then, she breaks into a laugh: "Wherever we went after that, people would identify Nayla as the place 'Quintal saab' visited. Nayla became world-famous! Not even for weddings do we do what we did for the president."

Over half-a-century ago, residents of a nondescript hamlet called Laramada near Agra paved the way—literally so—for what was to become an enduring cliche of US presidential visits to India: a brief, colourful rural turn. As the planners of Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1959 visit to India were to discover, touching down here was the perfect way of seeming to connect with the heart of a primarily agrarian nation, and the perfect photo-op besides.

Eisenhower and Nehru in Laramada, 1959

As we seek out Laramada, 51 years after Eisenhower visited, we can't help wondering whether it even exists. A faded sign with the village's name on it lays our doubts to rest. Meandering past that board is a brick lane, and as we're soon going to be told, it is the very road Eisenhower walked on. Trivia flies fast and furious around Laramada as village elders, bound together by that peculiar glue of shared memory, rewind to that winter of 1959, when Eisenhower's chopper noisily descended on their fields. "Eisenhower took the stage adjoining the panchayat ghar, all of which we constructed in eight days. Five bighas of crops were destroyed as people trampled on them, trying to get close to the president," septuagenarian farmer Sahab Singh remembers. Mahavir Singh, a former pradhan who grew up hearing all about it, adds, "Our panchayat accepted the challenge of turning the village into a model one in two months. Villagers worked nights on end to create smooth pathways, running rollers over layer upon layer of mud. Our mud houses were caked with dung and whitewashed to make them look like pucca structures." (Clearly, some things haven't changed in 50 years.)

Laramada's 90-year-old matriarch Barfi Devi's cloudy eyes see further into the past than we think. As the wife of the village's first headman, Karan Singh, she had hosted Eisenhower and then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in her humble home. Now, surrounded by an expanding family of children and grandchildren, she peers at a laminated photograph of the visit that her son, Ramesh Chand, has brought down from a shelf. "Aisen-haavar!" she says, struggling with a failing memory and a breaking voice, and then produces an anecdote about how both the US president and Nehru encouraged her to remove her ghoonghat in their presence. "'You are like our daughter', they told me. I served them puris made of asli ghee. It was our custom to serve milk then—not tea—and they relished the meal."

It's not surprising that Laramada's residents speak of the presidential visit as if it was only yesterday. Except for the occasional trill of mobile phones and a faint melody from Lafangey Parindey playing in a courtyard, there is little to remind them that five decades have passed since he came. Ramesh Chand underscores the point. "The only good that came out of the visit was that we got electricity soon after. From a hamlet of 1,500 people, Laramada is today a 5,500-strong village. But its progress has hardly kept pace," he says standing on the stage that once hosted the village's most famous visitor. The panchayat ghar too still stands, while the surrounding fields have been taken over by huts and cowsheds. The pond into which coloured water and ducks were released for Eisenhower's visit is a cesspool today.

Nayla: Bill Clinton, above, dancing with the village women, Mar 2000; PCs gifted by him gather dust under their covers in the local girls' school

In Nayla, too, the young sarpanch, Sankar Lal Sharma, seems struck by how brief that tantalising taste of fame was. The thriving milk cooperative, relocated here as the perfect showpiece for Clinton's visit, moved away from the village four years ago; the new location was found to be logistically unsustainable. The computers Clinton gifted to the Rajakiya Balika Madhyamik Vidyalaya and the panchayat lie wrapped in dusty covers because instructors, tired of waiting for their salaries, stopped showing up. The school was upgraded to offer Classes IX and X as part of the Clinton facelift, but never went beyond. "Maybe it'll take another vip visit for the plus-two course to begin," quips a villager.

Carterpuri: Children rule the dusty lanes of Carterpuri. (Photograph by Tribhuvan Tiwari)

Jimmy Carter visiting Daulatpur-Nazirabad village in 1978

But one rural encounter with a US president, several hundred kilometres away in Haryana's Daulatpur-Nasirabad village in 1978, did ensure a tiny piece of the country was never quite the same again. After Jimmy Carter dropped in to see where his mother, Lillian, had worked as a US Peace Corps volunteer, Daulatpur-Nasirabad got a new name—Carterpuri—and along with it a new identity: the "birthplace" of the peanut-farmer-turned-US-president. Three decades later, the quaint, if far-fetched, notion that Georgia-born Carter was a son of the Haryanvi soil has clearly taken root. "Hamare gaon ke aadmi America ke rashtrapati bane," smiles 70-year-old Kartar Singh, retired branch postmaster of Carterpuri, fishing out a newspaper clipping from a small local paper which actually states this. His treasure-trove of Carter memorabilia also has three photographs of the visit and thank-you letters from the White House.

Adds Ram Kishore Yadav, who was all of six when First Lady Rosalynn Carter—fetchingly dressed in a salwar suit—lifted him up in her arms, "We have a familial connection with him. It's not political." With some authority, he informs us that his photograph with Mrs Carter still hangs in the White House. And no, he doesn't have a copy.

Walking around the village, we learn that the jaildar's haveli where Carter's mother is believed to have stayed (and given birth to her son, so goes the lore) is no more, but the memories around it are alive and well. Fact and fiction merge as the stories pour out, just like in Laramada, where someone remembers a larger-than-life "7-and-a-half feet tall" Eisenhower hitting his head on a doorpost, while others remember how seven achkan sets, complete with artificial flowers in their buttonholes a la Nehru, arrived for the headman and his brother after the vips left.

Doubtless, in Nayla too, the Clinton stories will be burnished afresh with every decade. The vips may have come, namasted, conquered and zipped out in their superplanes, but for the overwhelmed villages they left behind, Elvis won't ever leave the building. And, oh yes, Laramada is abuzz with rumours of a surprise visit from Obamaji.

ajtr · Oct 31, 2010

Looking West, and waiting for Obama

This week, Dr Singh will welcome US President Barack Obama to India, and to a heightened partnership, economic and strategic — no doubt with an increasingly assertive, even aggressive, China on the minds of both men, even if everyone around them denies that that's the case. Mr Obama comes to India after having hosted Dr Singh as his first White House guest in November last, a visit that pundits have since declared was high on symbolism and not so high on substance.
Perhaps, it was just that Mr Obama's predecessor, George Bush, had raised the bar on warmth towards India too high for a new president, admittedly one with a different calculus and caught in a different set of circumstances, for Mr Obama to match it so early in his term. But that question has persisted: Does Mr Obama value America's relationship with India as much as the more classically geopolitically-oriented Bush administration? If he does, will he make it known and felt during his visit to Delhi?
White House and State department spokesmen have already said that their president's trip to India will be an "extraordinary milestone" in the bilateral relationship. So, what should India expect?
India and the US have moved, since former president Bill Clinton's visit to India in 2000, from being "estranged democracies" to "engaged democracies" to, under Mr Bush, "strategic partners" or even "natural allies", with the civilian nuclear deal as the high-point. So, what can Mr Obama do to make this visit an "extraordinary milestone"?
President Obama comes to India with a host of think-tanks – including the Centre for New American Security, his preferred ideas factory — and US business leaders encouraging him to announce America's endorsement of India for a UN Security Council seat. Nothing else, of course, would come close to making this summit — between the leaders of the two countries whose bilateral relationship is pivotal to 21st century world order — an "extraordinary milestone".
It may well happen. US spokesmen have already indicated a significant shift in America's thinking on the "India for UNSC" question, especially in the wake of the overwhelming support for India demonstrated by 187 of the 191 countries in the UN that elected it to a two-year term on the Security Council weeks ago. From doubts over whether India has what it takes to be at the high table to stalling UN reforms just so that the question of new members does not even arise, the US, under Mr. Obama, has moved to: "Given India's rise and its significance, we believe India will be a central part of any consideration of a reformed UN Security Council".
It is about as much government spokesmen can say without pre-empting their president. So, watch carefully for movement, even if it be nuanced, on this core Indian expectation when Mr Obama addresses Parliament in Delhi on November 7.
In a sense, therefore, America has made a determination on the substance of the question. What remains now is for the US and India to work out how to get there. That may look simple enough, but as Clausewitz would remind us: Just it because it looks simple does not mean it's easy to get done.
For, Mr Obama also comes at a time of grave economic worries in the US, and he has already given enough signals — including his so-called "letter of expectations" to Prime Minister Singh — that during this visit, "America's business is business". It might be more pertinent, therefore, for the Indian leadership to ask itself, as one Indian-American observer of the relationship put it recently: What has Delhi done lately for Washington?
To be sure, though, the Obama visit will not be about either America unilaterally satisfying India's biggest desire or India having to give Americans everything they wish for without getting anything in return. Indeed, New Delhi must derive satisfaction from the fact that Mr. Obama hasn't let the edifice of strategic partnership, or even the nuclear deal, fall through as was feared when he came into office. Indeed, in his own cool and more calculated way, he has built on the foundations that presidents Clinton and Bush laid, expanding the idea and agenda of strategic partnership beyond military exercises and defence deals to such areas as clean energy and technologies and a knowledge partnership. Dr. Singh should also be looking to receive a president whose love for India — if it can be called that — goes beyond interests to values, beyond Washington's necessity of wooing India for geopolitical reasons to looking for a partnership based on shared values of democracy.

ajtr · Nov 1, 2010

Shaped by the future

There appears to be excessive focus in the media on the transactional aspects of the forthcoming Manmohan Singh-Barack Obama summit. Perhaps the most appropriate way of looking at it is the one put forward by the National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon in an address to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington: "The visit offers us an opportunity to put into place a longer term framework for the India-US strategic partnership and add content to that partnership in several areas that are now ripe... In today's international situation India-US relations are an important factor for world peace, stability and progress. An open, balanced and inclusive security architecture in Asia and the world would be a goal that is in our common interest. So too would be the rules of the road (or codes of conduct) for the global commons, developed internationally through a democratic process of consultation and negotiations... Traditionally India and the US have viewed each other across the Eurasian landmass and the Atlantic Ocean. We get a different perspective if we look across the Pacific, across a space we share and that is vital to the security and prosperity of our two countries. Apart from changing geopolitics the emergence of new transnational and global threats also brings us together."
What are these transnational and global threats? Obama himself has highlighted that the risks of nuclear confrontation among nations have come down. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote in December 2005: "For the first time since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the prospect of violent conflict between great powers is becoming ever more unthinkable. Major states are increasingly competing in peace, not preparing for war." Similar views about the impact of globalisation on the international strategic situation have been expressed by the Indian prime minister in successive combined commanders' conferences. The transnational threats are religious extremism, terrorism in support of such extremism, organised crime including drug traffic, pandemics and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The challenge arising out of assertiveness and expansionism of a rapidly rising, non-democratic China feeling the pressures of enveloping international democratic culture on its own knowledge-acquiring population in the information age and its use of nuclear proliferation to counter the influence of democracies is coming into stark recognition. China proliferated nuclear weapons to Pakistan and North Korea and missile technology also to Iran and Saudi Arabia. In turn Pakistan has used nuclear deterrence as a shield to use terrorism as a state policy employing non-state actors against India, the US and the UK. Nuclear deterrence has been used by illegitimate regimes to resist externally induced regime changes. Attempting to counter the influence of India, the US, Russia and Japan in Asia and to emerge as the foremost power first in Asia and then in the world, China has used Pakistan and North Korea as launchpads for expanding its influence in South, West and Central Asia and on the Asian-Pacific rim.

There are threats also to various global commons, the international sea lanes and waters, cyber space and outer space. In an era with nine nuclear weapon states and globalisation, these challenges cannot be effectively responded to by military alliances of the NATO-type nor by unilateral military means.

India happens to be the arena where both the one-party authoritarianism of China viewing the pluralism and democracy of India as a challenge and religious extremism-inspired jihadi terrorism of Pakistan intersect and there have been expressions of views in both countries against the unity and integrity of India. The US, India, the European Union, Russia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Brazil,

Mexico, Canada, Philippines and Australia are pluralistic, secular democracies. Along with Japan and South Korea, which are secular democracies, these nations and a union (there may be other nations eligible to be included in this list) constitute half of the world's population. This is the first time in human history that such a high percentage of the world's population lives under democratic rule.

Manmohan Singh and Obama's joint statement of November 24, 2009 said: "The shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders — democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights — are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world... The two leaders resolved to harness these shared strengths and to expand the US-India global partnership for the benefit of their countries, for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, and for the betterment of the world." (Emphasis added.)

This is the core task that the two leaders should address in this summit. The success of the summit will depend on the progress they make in harnessing the shared strengths of the two countries for the defence of pluralism, secularism and democracy. The main hurdle they face is the Cold War-Non-Alignment mindset of the political establishments, bureaucracies, media and academia in both countries. Changing perceptions in India and the US that the security challenges in the 21st century are different from those of the 20th century and therefore the responses should be different is a time-consuming process, but it cannot escape having to be addressed. Many of the transactional problems between the two countries will find easier solutions if the politico-strategic establishments and bureaucracies on both sides realise that the US and India today share a common vision of a pluralistic, secular and democratic world order for the 21st century, and therefore have to formulate a common strategy for the purpose.

Towards this end, the democratic world cannot afford to allow authoritarian China to become the foremost power of the world overtaking the US. If the Americans do not want to lose their technological, financial and organisational pre-eminence (they cannot remain number one by GDP by 2050) they need a democratic and English-speaking partner which can offset the Chinese numerical superiority in outproducing the scientists, engineers and technicians in the coming years and act as a talent reservoir. That can only be India.

If India wants to narrow the gap with China it needs the same kind of support the US extended to China from the '80s onwards to make China the factory of the world. Clean energy generation, energy efficient products, energy conservation, green style of life and agricultural revolution necessitated by climate change together will call for a new industrial revolution in the coming decades. Knowledge will be the currency of power in that world. Pluralistic and democratic societies will have an advantage in terms of creativity and innovativeness. Formulating the first initial steps in the strategy of leading the international community towards that world order should occupy the joint attention of the two leaders in the forthcoming summit.

The writer is a senior defence analyst [email protected]

nrj · Nov 1, 2010

India will pursue Headley's extradition with Obama during his visit: Chidambaram

Obama visit: A good opportunity for Indian firms

RAM · Nov 2, 2010

US to help India better its monsoon forecast

S President Barack Obama's November 6-9 visit will roll out an expansive agricultural partnership that could give India — among other things — a more accurate model to predict its dodgy monsoon. Those familiar with the developments are calling it Indian agriculture's equivalent of "putting man on the moon".

An increasingly truant southwest monsoon remains a big worry for the government, as two-thirds of Indians depend on farm income and 60% of India's farmed areas remain outside its irrigation network.
Last year, the monsoon was 22% deficient, despite an initial normal forecast. The patchy rains had triggered the worst drought in three decades, raising food prices sharply.
The spadework for the monsoon mission began in July when Planning Commission member, K Kasturirangan, and secretary in the department of earth sciences, Shailesh Nayak, visit-ed the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. "The US model should be available to us by December," Nayak told HT on Monday.
India homed in on the US model, called the "Couple Forecasting System", for two reasons. One, it combines both oceanography and atmospherical sciences, unlike the Indian model that relies mainly on the former. Two, scientists feel the US model can be better adapted to Indian conditions.
Once access is granted, scientists from the Indian Council for Agricultural Research and Indian Space Research Organi-sation will team up with NOAA to fine-tune it to suit India's needs. First, it should predict sudden breaks in monsoon cycle fairly accurately and, secondly, enable more short-term and localised predictions, such as district level predictions.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/US-to-help-India-better-its-monsoon-forecast/Article1-620931.aspx

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

Walker's World: Obama in India

The White House has been at great pains to explain that President Barack Obama's visit to India this week is all about jobs and trade. But nobody in Asia believes it.

With China canceling a planned summit with Japan's prime minister, Kashmir erupting again, Afghanistan sinking deeper into disaster and Iran loading fuel rods into its new nuclear reactor at Bushehr, the Asian security agenda looks considerably more compelling.

And yet Obama is hoping to save some Democratic congressional seats from the likely wreckage in this week's mid-term elections, so the propaganda about jobs makes a kind of sense.

As a result, he is taking the biggest entourage of top businessmen ever to grace a presidential trip.
A jumbo jet full of chief executive officers, some 250 at last count, will be joining Obama's own entourage of family, six armored cars and a total of 40 aircraft on the Indian mission, chasing deals.

Ron Somers of the U.S. India Business Council is talking of more than $10 billion being signed in contracts next week, bringing with them 100,000 U.S. jobs.
GE thinks it has sewn up a $5 billion order to supply locomotives for Indian Railways. American hopes of providing India's new generation of advanced fighter jets may not come to fruition but Boeing is confident of a $6 billion sale of C-17 military cargo and another $2.5 billion in commercial jets to India's flourishing budget airlines.

noting that India is the second-fastest growing inward investor to America.

The United States and India are each investing more than $10 billion a year into the other country and bilateral trade is running at $43 billion a year. That's good but it's not much more than 10 percent of U.S.-China trade.

The really tricky negotiations will be over geo-politics. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been at pains last week to stress that the United States didn't see China as an adversary. But there is little doubt that the United States, as the world's most powerful democracy, sees India, the most populous and fastest-growing democracy, as a natural ally against an authoritarian and potentially aggressive China.

But Obama must tread softly. His administration's regional envoy Richard Holbrooke got off to a bad start when India made it clear that it was no longer prepared to be seen through the traditional Indo-Pakistan perspective. India is bigger than that now and has never welcomed any outside interest in its troubles in Kashmir. Yet Pakistan remains crucial to the embattled U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
"The U.S. sees Pakistan as an indispensable but dishonest partner," suggested Pakistani commentator Imtiaz Gul, on a visit to Washington last week. "Pakistan has its own worries about the waning U.S. commitment in Afghanistan. It's a war between the short-term American agenda and Pakistan's long-term national interests."

Nor does India want to be taken for granted as a strategic ally in Asia, in part because India knows that it has much healthier long-term demographics than China. If China will be challenging the United States for the No. 1 economic slot around the year 2030, India thinks it could be the challenger by 2050.

Bush, who also saw India as America's key ally in Asia against a rising China, set a positive course, and it will be up to Obama to use his personal charm to maintain and extend it. The problem is that he looks like arriving in India as a loser, as a defeated leader of the Democratic Party after a humiliating loss in Congress, and with a big question mark over his power to get things done in Washington over the next two years.

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

A two-year wonder?

November 01, 2010 9:57:09 PM

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Angry Americans give up on Obama

The days of wine and roses are over and US President Barack Obama stands stripped of the aura that propelled him to office two years ago. Many of the Obama myths, not all of them spun by his campaign managers, stand exposed as that much fiction and no more; there is a distinct air of disenchantment among America's chattering classes who had mistaken cleverly worded slogans for political commitment and seen 'hope' in a vacuous promise — "Yes we can!" was never elevated to "Yes we shall!" Instead of demonstrating his claimed abilities to pull America out of its downward economic slide and restoring 'values' and 'morals' — the Democrats are never short of either and are prone to waxing eloquent on both while hectoring others — to domestic and foreign policies, he has failed on both fronts. Contrary to popular expectations and his carefully nurtured public image, Mr Obama has turned out to be anything but a 'thinking' President; indeed, his critics would call him 'shallow'. He is indecisive, depends on others to take the call and simply lacks the chutzpah without which an American President is no different from the President of one of its client states. Mr Obama thought he would bowl over Muslims around the world and have the Islamists eating out of his hands. He tried to 'reach out' to the 'Muslim world' by denouncing all that his predecessor did (or stood for), in all fairness, not to raise his stature but to protect America's interests. While delivering his Cairo lecture, he glossed over inconvenient facts of history to justify Arab belligerence towards Israel. Nobody, least of all the Arabs, remembers that lecture today. He sought to secure Pakistan's gratitude by plying that country with more aid than its corrupt Generals and terror-sponsoring institutions could pocket. It's not surprising that Gen Pervez Musharraf is willing to risk his life and limb by wanting to hop onto the Washington-Islamabad-Rawalpindi gravy train. The gravy was not as tempting during the Bush Administration years as it has been ever since Mr Obama came to power. Yet, the regular despatch of billion-dollar cheques, the unending supply of arms and ammunition, and the willingness to do business with the Taliban and other assorted criminals have not quite endeared Mr Obama to the Pakistanis. As for Afghanistan, he is seen as a loser by both Pakhtuns and non-Pakhtuns; a wimp who confuses policy waffle with action on the ground. Elsewhere in the world, including in its backyard and among its trans-Atlantic allies, Mr Obama does not really matter, nor does the US count for much.

If the Republicans trounce the Democrats in tomorrow's elections, and seize the Senate and House majorities, even by the narrowest of margins, then Mr Obama will be reduced to, let's face it, a lame-duck President. Congress will threaten to spike his proposals; he will threaten to veto the Congress's objections; Congress will dare him; and so it will continue. A year can be a very short time in American politics: By the end of 2011, Mr Obama will have to get into re-election mode. But that's the tricky bit. There are already indications that the Democrats may not want to field their wonder boy for a second term. An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks Poll conducted during the mid-term campaign shows that Democratic voters are "closely divided over whether Mr Obama should be challenged within the party for a second term in 2012". That "glum assessment carries over into the nation at large, which is similarly divided over whether Mr Obama should be a one-term President". These are still early days and politics can take strange, un-anticipated twists and turns. But the fact that the proverbial knight in shining armour should find himself staring at the very real possibility of being hoisted off his steed in so unceremonious a manner cannot but be discomfiting for Mr Obama and his fast diminishing-ranks of dreamy-eyed supporters.
Email | Print | Rate: 12345

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

x-posting

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/11/01/continental-and-maritime-in-u-s-india-relations/

To Americans, India can be a real jumble of contradictions. It is a maritime nation—strategically situated near key chokepoints—but with a continental strategic tradition. It is a nation of illustrious mercantile traditions but for decades walled off large swaths of its economy.
....
.....why are the U.S. and India so bogged down in (and over) continental Asia?

....it is maritime, not continental, Asia that is now the world's center of economic and geopolitical gravity. So at a moment when India's own foreign policy has burst the confining boundaries of its South Asian strategic geography, Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would do well to focus greater attention there—and perhaps search for a new "big idea" by connecting several policy initiatives across a series baskets, including energy, seaborne trade, finance, the global commons, and regional architecture.

Continental Asia has been an arena for U.S.-India disagreement, even rancor. But maritime Asia offers natural affinities of interest—and the opportunity to turn common interests into complementary policies.

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

Continental and Maritime in U.S.-India Relations

The Indian financial newspaper, Business Standard, has published my latest "DC Diary" column. With President Obama landing in New Delhi this week, it seemed like a good time to ask why Washington and New Delhi remain so burdened, even imprisoned, by continental preoccupations.
To Americans, India can be a real jumble of contradictions. It is a maritime nation—strategically situated near key chokepoints—but with a continental strategic tradition. It is a nation of illustrious mercantile traditions but for decades walled off large swaths of its economy.
Much has changed, principally because rapid economic growth has allowed India to break from the confining shackles of South Asia. India is again an Asian player, better integrated into the East Asian economic system. And it has a growing capacity to influence the wider Asian balance of power.
So, here's my question: Given all that change, why are the U.S. and India so bogged down in (and over) continental Asia?
At one level, I suppose, it's unavoidable: Pakistan's choices complicate American policies. And elements of Washington's partnership with Islamabad clearly complicate Indian policies too.
What is more, President Obama is determined to extricate the United States from Afghanistan. And the timing and manner of U.S. withdrawal will affect Indian strategic interests—and quite possibly leave India holding the bag.
The president needs to address this, not least because disagreements over his administration's policies toward Afghanistan and Pakistan have been a principal obstacle to strengthened U.S.-India relations since he took office. Many in India remain deeply skeptical of his approach. And better aligning expectations and objectives could do much to strengthen the U.S.-India partnership.
But it is maritime, not continental, Asia that is now the world's center of economic and geopolitical gravity. So at a moment when India's own foreign policy has burst the confining boundaries of its South Asian strategic geography, Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would do well to focus greater attention there—and perhaps search for a new "big idea" by connecting several policy initiatives across a series baskets, including energy, seaborne trade, finance, the global commons, and regional architecture.
Continental Asia has been an arena for U.S.-India disagreement, even rancor. But maritime Asia offers natural affinities of interest—and the opportunity to turn common interests into complementary policies.
Just take the sea-lanes: It is an arena of mutual interest. It is an arena that raises questions about how to reconcile claims of sovereignty with the need to assure public goods. And it is an arena that will test China's rise as a stakeholder in global order. When Beijing talks loudly about sovereign rights and claims, the U.S. and India should speak loudly—and together—about international rights and customs.
Indeed, this is precisely the sort of issue that my friend, Raja Mohan, has argued could become central to building a more encompassing U.S.-India partnership. As Raja has nicely put it, cooperation on the regional and global commons "has the potential to connect India's traditional universalism with its new responsibilities as a rising power and further enhance its relationship with the United States."
In short, maritime spaces, not continental ones, seem the more promising place to define a shared vision of Asia's future. So the U.S. and India could look to a series of new ideas in each of these various baskets:
In the commons: new cooperation in the naval, air, space, and cyber domains, including enhanced exercises, bureaucratic coordination, and Indian membership in efforts such as the U.S. Megaports program or Proliferation Security Initiative.
In the economic and financial space: a Bilateral Investment Treaty, U.S. support for Indian membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum as the moratorium on new members expires, and perhaps even eventual association with the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
There are a variety of overlapping ideas in the energy space, and India already participates with the U.S. in regional groups, such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
Likewise, in the regional architecture space. For instance, now that the U.S. has decided to join the East Asia Summit, where India is already a member, the very least the two can do together is to try to build in some real capabilities. As I've argued on this blog before, EAS needs to do something. And with the U.S. and India, as well as other major Asian powers present, EAS at least has the virtue of including the right players. Inevitably, U.S. and Indian membership in EAS will reduce the role of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)–one of the few Asian groups where Washington and New Delhi have had the opportunity to work together in the past. And perhaps the recent ARF meeting in Hanoi—where 12 nations offered complementary perspectives and approaches to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea—offers an example for EAS of how to make political discussions current and meaningful. It's a model that won't sit well with Beijing, to be sure. But at least EAS would, in time, become more than just another leaders' group-grope. The U.S. and India can help to assure that.
Do check out my column in the Business Standard. And for a broader set of prescriptive ideas for Obama's visit, including some in these various baskets, take a look at the new report of a bipartisan study group on U.S.-India relations, issued by the Center for a New American Security. I participated in this group, chaired by Richard Armitage and Nicholas Burns and directed by Richard Fontaine.

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

'UNSC seat a foolish idea'

Former foreign secretary M K Rasgotra on Monday embarrassed the Indian side during a seminar on Indo-Sino relations when he dubbed India's ambition of a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council as a "foolish idea". He said the dream might take 20 years to fulfill, only when the world

recognises it as a major power and a military power.
But Congress spokesman Manish Tewari, one of the panelists, was quick to retort, saying the views expressed by Rasgotra were personal.

"These are not the views of the Congress party...a permanent seat remains an aspiration. The UNSC should reflect the geo-political situation of the 21st century," he said.

The discussion on the political basis of Sino-India relations was part of the seminar on 'China and India: 60 Years and Beyond' organised by the Congress party and the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Responding to a question on whether China supports India's bid for a permanent seat, Rasgotra, who is a member of the Congress party's foreign affairs department, said: "I think we have a fetish about permanent seat in the UNSC...it is a foolish idea. I don't know who has floated it".

He said newspapers were abuzz with speculations that US President Barack Obama will support India's bid in the UNSC. "He will not give us a permanent seat though he will give us a lot of words," Rasgotra said.

He said the fulfillment of India's quest for a permanent seat in the UNSC was 10 years, "possibly 20 years away".

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

Obama visit: Relief unlikely in outsourcing of jobs

NEW DELHI: The forthcoming visit of the US President is unlikely to provide any relief to India in the area of outsourcing of jobs, feels a former Obama campaign chief of staff.

At an interaction on "US-India Relations: How India Can Strengthen its Position" organised by Observer Research Foundation, Pete Dagher said he did not foresee the US President announcing any change in his policy which disallows tax breaks to companies which outsources jobs to other countries.

"It's unlikely. I don't think the President will open up for jobs", Obama's former Chief Campaign Manager said.

He also said that the President is unlikely to mention anything against China and Pakistan. He was responding to a query from Ms. Arundhati Ghose, former Indian Representative at the United Nations, who said India is expecting that the US President would do some plains peaking as regards these two neighbours of India are concerned.

"Unlikely. I don't see any such likelihood. May be he will," Mr. Dagher responded, adding Mr. Obama, however, has been quite outspoken against Pakistan in the US which has cost him popularity. He said the US believes that Pakistan should not become failed state.

Dagher asked India to use its strong diaspora more aggressively to lobby for its interests, as being done by the Chinese. "India is respectful while China is squeaky," he said, adding that the 2012 presidential campaigns would begin in four months time.

He also suggested that India should work in strengthening the foundation in the Congress, and also work on media, as the Chinese have done, to reduce negative stories and increase positives.

Viswanathan, Distinguished Fellow, ORF, who chaired the event, said the US leadership should realise that the interests of Indian diaspora and India may not be the same.

Ray · Nov 2, 2010

President Obama's visit will possibly see some agreement in the economic sector.

It is too sensitive an issue to spell out anything on Pakistan or China and so that would in all probability be avoided. It does not, in any way, suggests that there will be no private dialogue over the same, more so with China's belligerence in the South China sea and the latest confrontation with Japan.

Currently, with China acting 'tough' with Japan and the SE Asian countries, there is great apprehension about China's aim and these countries are closing ranks with the US, even if not in any open manner. The US would like to capitalise on this adverse situation for China and make hay while the sun shines. Hence, India which is the only nation that can thwart China, would have to be wooed in a more serious way and that is what would be, in all probability, on Obama's private dialogue agenda.

It must be understood that Pakistan has a hold on the jugular of the ISAF by being the only economical route for logistics support. Therefore, Pakistan cannot be jiggered up too seriously. Yet, on the other hand, many a US think tank have suggested that the Soviet and the CAR route should be used and Pakistan abandoned. These think tanks have also indicated that the US would have to throw in a few sops in Russia's way. This, they feel, is more agreeable than being blackmailed by Pakistan, more so, since the country is in a turmoil and one cannot predict how the cat shall jump!

It would also be in US' interest to take the Russian route and work out some strategic understanding where it becomes a bulwark to China in concert with Russia, all very covertly. The US presence in CAR and the cosying up with Russia would surely discomfit China. All said and done, Russia is not too comfortable with China for a variety of reasons.

These issues may be discussed with India playing the role of a sounding board since interests are common and India's expertise on understanding the Russians owing to long association.

Ostentatiously, it will appear to be a business trip with the strategic issues totally out of public purview.

Parthy · Nov 2, 2010

Can US be a trusted ally of India in future??

Are we going to fight Pakistan with the US

Vice Admiral Raman Puri asks hard questions about India-US defence ties

The Indian experience of buying weapons from America is not smooth. We have recently found problems in weapons-locating radars of the United States. The American transfer of technology means that they will build, they will sell the item and keep you on a short leash as far as spare parts and support system are concerned.

My contention is that as long as we don't have a deep political understanding with the US, it is not advisable to get into a deep defence relationship. The Asia Pacific is America's concern, but India's concern is Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Why do we need certain defence agreements with US that give us inter-operability in far away shores?

Further, growing Indo-US defense ties suggest that the Indian government has given up on the goal of self-reliance. It is now merely a political slogan. Their excuse is lame.

They say the Defense Research and Development Organisation has not delivered. I don't think critics of the DRDO have analysed what is not delivered. There is no synergy in the ministry of defence. There is no synergy between the decision-making structures of the government. Army headquarter is one silo, the naval and air force headquarters are separate silos. The ministry of defence works on its own. There is a very loose coordination attempted at the individual level without a formal structure. There is a firewall between the production and the research side of the weapons making systems. There is hardly any mission statement from the armed forces. That doesn't come because you don't have a national security strategy and its stated goals.

'Army's shopping from the US doesn't make sense'

The Indian army's shopping from the US or Israel doesn't make sense because our army has not issued a mission statement yet. I think our so-called shopping of state-of-the-art weapons don't make sense till the National Security Council and the office of Chairman, Chief of Defense Staff function in coordination. Both these institutions are resisted or just ignored.

The Indian armed forces are apolitical; why there should not be a chief of defence staff? How will he become more powerful than politicians?

Today in cyber warfare, we don't have joint strategies of the three wings. I have seen meetings between the chiefs of the three defence wings. They don't produce any doctrines. They function on a limited agenda.

When the issue of buying of defense equipment from America comes, they talk about 'latest' and 'high technology.' These are just subjective words. What India needs is to fight efficiently with its competitors. We are not in competition with the US or Europe. We are and we should compare ourselves with our neighbours.

I have not read a professional joint mission need of Indian forces in 40 years. So, who is pushing the forces to buy such costly arms?

'Why should we go for American aircraft'

In absence of solid internal defence coordination of the three wings of the air force, army and navy, how can India sign the Communication Interoperability & Security Memorandum of Agreement, Logistics Support agreement, End Users Agreement kind of pacts with America? Some of these agreements will allow the inter-operability of Indian forces with the US, but what about inter-operability within our own forces?

If we sign such agreements with the US then we will need double set of equipments: One to read American algorithms and one to read ours. Why do we need inter-operability that the Americans want so much? Are we going to fight with Pakistan or any other country along with the US? Surely, we don't want to join American forces doing the dirty work of intervention operations? The Indian armed forces should remain independent of such tie-ups, which are not backed by political understanding of the highest order.

In my assessment all that the Indian defence forces need is updated Sukhoi- 30s and Light Combat Aircraft. We should keep modernising the LCAs; they are as good as the Mirage 2000.

Why should we go for American- made 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft? Each US-made MMRCA will cost us over $ 70 million while the LCA cost us only $ 26 million. Why should we spend so much money? Of course, we have problems with our LCA but we should be working to solve that. Why should we be so keen to become dependent? And, remember, when you build the LCA indigenously, you are building an institution.

I can say only that I disagree with my own community when they want to go for US- or Israel-made weapons and completely bind themselves with them. I know for sure that in 2003 the Air Force only wanted the Mirage 2000. Why don't you upgrade it? I think that is what the Indian Air Force needs to fight China, Pakistan or any other neighbour if need be. The Indian government doesn't have second professional advice. It is totally in the hands of service chiefs who many times don't agree with each other. That disturbs the country's research and development and upsets production infrastructure.

'India and US' political goals do not match'

In India, there is no systematic method to produce joint mission requirements. We don't draw joint technological plans with long-term perspectives. India doesn't have a technological commission to cater to needs of the defence services.

At this rate, in the long term, our dependence on the US will increase. Indian taxpayers will pay much more than what you should be paying for the capabilities being created. I think we will feel sorry when we have to use those capabilities.

Importantly, if the US and India's political goals do not match, then US made equipment capabilities will be much reduced, with problems of spare parts, upgradation and other legal restrictions on technologies.

There are many lobbies working around in New Delhi representing the British, French, Americans, Russians, etc. I believe they should not influence us. Even foreign aircraft come only after 10 or so years don't blame indigenous efforts to develop them that take that kind of time.

Second, we must see what we can afford.

Three, we should not have a fetish for state-of-the-art equipment if we can mange with what we have or what we can get with help of the DRDO. Also, is what you are buying really state of the art? I don't think so. I have seen negotiations for a few things going on for decades, still you say you are buying the latest! We have made ballistic missiles to ballistic missiles systems. I don't think there is any technology left that doesn't go into that system.

'We must promote self-reliance'

The American system of selling weapons to India under Foreign Military Sales has kept middlemen away, but I don't think it's helpful in getting access to spares and other services. I think CISMOA should be a no-go area for Indian defense services.

Being poor is no crime. But being a slave is a crime. How can you file status report to Americans under the LSA?

On one side we are losing politically when in Af-Pak policy the Americans keep India out while allowing Pakistan to have strategic depth, but still we want to sign defence agreements with them.

I agree that the US is a powerful country. We should have defence ties with it. But we must promote self-reliance. China is doing today what it wants because it's not dependent on others. You can't be even a sub-regional power if you are totally dependent on outside powers for your weapons. We can't even have military diplomacy.

Also, China's official defense budget is three times our own and their procurement costs are much lower than ours because they have much greater levels of indigenisation. So, when we are buying from abroad our needs cannot clearly help to bridge the growing asymmetries in capability. We must be cautious of the factor of affordability when planning to buy from America or any other country. We have to choose appropriate strategies to meet our mission needs and not some hypothetical 'state-of-the-art' printed in the brochure of weapons manufacturing companies.

http://www.mynews.in/News/are_we_going_to_fight_pakistan_with_the_us_N104848.html

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

Obama's trip a step up for India

The much-anticipated maiden trip of US President Barack Obama to India, later this month, is already making headlines, with breathless commentaries on possible opportunities for the two sides. The relationship of 60-odd years between the world's two biggest democracies has been characterised by ebbs and tides, with the Pakistan factor playing a key role in their bitter-sweet relationship. President Obama's predecessor, George W Bush, though unpopular at home, delivered a civil nuclear deal to India despite strong opposition from Islamabad and despite Delhi's reluctance to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But there is no big ticket item on Obama's trip — the longest he will make to any foreign country during his presidency so far.
So what does New Delhi expect? The list isn't too long. One, it expects President Obama to lift export restrictions on sensitive hi-technology put in place after the 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests. Two, it wants unequivocal US support for a permanent berth on the UN Security Council. And three, India wants President Obama to address its concerns over billions of dollars of aid given to Pakistan.
In return, the burgeoning Indian economy and its quest for arms, fuelled by the growing military might of China, has a lot to offer. In June this year, British Prime Minister David Cameron, on a tour to India, clinched $1.1 billion in defence deals. The Obama administration knows that India, one of the world's biggest arms markets, is expected to spend $112 billion on defence acquisition between now and 2016. And President Obama will be pushing for the existing American tenders for defence contracts.
But the lion's share is expected to go to America's rival, Russia, as New Delhi is expected to sign an approximately $30 billion stealth fighter co-production deal with Moscow, during President Dmitry Medvedev's trip next month. High on President Obama's priority list will be India's assimilation into global non-proliferation bodies, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Obama may also press India to begin serious commercial negotiations with American nuclear suppliers as a follow-up to the nuclear deal.
Now the million-dollar question: What can Pakistan expect from this trip? Not much, frankly speaking. America doesn't want to estrange India — a country with which President Obama says his country is going to have one of the "defining relationships" of the 21st century. Proof: Obama skipped Pakistan in his upcoming tour.
Islamabad expects the Obama administration to play a role in resolving the Kashmir dispute which has been bedeviling Pakistan-India relations since their inception in 1947. At the recent strategic dialogue meetings in Washington, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi did raise this issue. But the State Department quickly moved to preclude the possibility of US mediation, saying Washington will encourage bilateral dialogue between the two countries to resolve the issue. So there is little possibility of this issue figuring in talks between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But Pakistan and Afghanistan will surely be on the agenda. India has become the biggest regional aid donor with its $1.3 billion worth of civilian projects in Afghanistan. The US is happy with this 'developmental role' but Pakistan is not; it is wary of the increasing Indian presence in its backyard. The real test for President Obama will be to strike a balance, or at least some semblance of balance, in its de-hyphenated relations with the two hyphenated neighbours.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 2nd, 2010.

ajtr · Nov 2, 2010

Balancing New Delhi with Beijing

November 02, 2010 2:45:43 PM

B Raman

US President Barack Obama will be doing a tight rope walk when he embarks on his Asian tour later this week. It has been evident for long that the Obama Administration does not want China to feel that the US is pursuing better relations with India at the expense of Washington's ties with Beijing. Will he be able to achieve this objective?

How to cooperate effectively with both India and China without seeming to favour the relationship with one at the cost of the relationship with the other? That will be one of the main strategic objectives of US President Barack Obama's forthcoming Asian tour during which he will be visiting India, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. His observations during his visit to China in November last year had given rise to an impression in India that his Administration had downgraded the importance attached to the US's relations with India by his predecessor Mr George W Bush and had started viewing this country as a sub-regional power not on par with China.

Correcting this impression without adding to Chinese fears of an attempt by the US to use India against China will be one of the objectives of his forthcoming visit to India and his subsequent meeting on November 11 with President Hu Jintao of China in the margins of the G20 summit in South Korea. The policies of the Bush Administration had given rise to fears in the Chinese mind that it was seeking to use India and Japan to encircle China. Mr Obama's attempts to play down these fears had created suspicions in India's mind that he did not accord the same importance to the US's relations with India as Mr Bush had done.

Mr Obama is keen to remove the impression in India that its importance vis-Ã -vis China had been downgraded by him while at the same time reassuring China that it has nothing to fear from closer India-US relations. A preview of how he intended doing this has been available from the remarks of Ms Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, during her current tour of East and South East Asia.

She has been quoted as saying as follows in a speech during her first halt at Honolulu on October 28, 2010: "The relationship between China and the United States is complex and of enormous consequence but we are committed to getting it right. There are some in both countries who believe that China's interests and ours are fundamentally at odds. They apply a zero-sum calculation to our relationship, so whenever one of us succeeds, the other must fail. But that is not our view. In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries. In a crowded field of highly dynamic, increasingly influential emerging nations, two stand out: India and China. Their simultaneous rise is reshaping the world and our ability to cooperate effectively with these countries will be a critical test of our leadership."

This strategic objective of finding ways of co-operating effectively with both India and China is expected to be the main theme of his discussions with the Indian leaders in New Delhi and his meeting with Mr Hu Jintao in Seoul on November 11 as well as of the meeting on October 29 of Ms Clinton with Chinese state councillor Dai Bingguo in Hainan.

From the various background briefings given by officials of the White House and the State Department at Washington DC on the eve of Mr Obama's visit to Asia, it is fairly clear that his visit to India will have a much larger strategic canvas than what one had seen during the visit of Mr Bush in 2006. It will not have a single point focus. There will be no flagship issue. The larger strategic issue of the US, India and China in Asia will be the defining theme of his visit. Other subjects such as the implementation of the civil nuclear co-operation agreement, removal of the names of some Indian establishments from the so-called list of entities barred access to US technology, Indian purchase of US military equipment etc are likely to be discussed in the margins of this defining theme, but at the sub-summit level by the officials of the delegations without Mr Obama himself devoting too much attention to it.

However, counter-terrorism co-operation will continue to be an important subject on the summit agenda in view of the importance attached to it by Indian public and political opinion and the continuing negative impact of terrorism on India's relations with Pakistan. What contribution the US can make to removing the distrust between India and Pakistan will be a subject next in importance to the role of the US, India and China in Asia.

The question of US support to India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council will be a tricky issue. There is no question of the US working for it unless it is certain that Japan and Germany too get in. Even in the unlikely event of China changing its present opposition to India becoming a permanent member, there is no question of its supporting Japan now or ever.

Mr Obama's visit will have a mix of symbolism and substance. The symbolism will be seen in Mumbai where he will demonstrate his solidarity with India in its fight against terrorism and pay a tribute to the resilience of Mumbai and its business community in the face of repeated terrorist strikes in this business city. He has deliberately chosen Diwali for the start of his visit to underline his confidence that ultimately good will prevail over evil. The substance will be seen during his talks with the Indian leaders in New Delhi and in his address to the joint session of the Parliament.

Next to his visit to India, his visit to Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population in the world, will be of major significance. He is expected to address the Islamic world from Indonesia in continuation of his address from Cairo last year. He is expected to focus on the thinning down of the US military presence in Iraq, his keenness for a similar thinning down in Afghanistan and the goodwill of the US to the Muslims of the world even while carrying on its fight against Al Qaeda and its associates.

-- The writer, a former senior officer of R&AW, is a strategic affairs commentator.

SHASH2K2 · Nov 2, 2010

Endorse India for permanent UNSC seat: USIBC asks Obama

WASHINGTON: The US-India business community wants President Barack Obama to endorse India for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, and address issues of concern for New Delhi like the H-1B visa fee hike and fears about outsourcing of US jobs to India.

Ahead of Obama's India visit this week, they have also advocated the lifting of most dual-use export licensing requirements specific to India and batted for making licensing and clearance for defence articles easier for India.

At the same time, the report submitted by the US-India Business Council (USIBC) has said suggested that India needs to increase the FDI investment cap to 74 per cent to spur greater investment and transfer of technology.

"The United Nations Security Council remains the clearest symbol of decision-making in world security matters. The US-India business community strongly feels that our partnership should begin here," said the report 'Partners in Prosperity Business Leading the Way' released by the USIBC, whose chairman is Terry McGraw, chairman president and CEO of the McHGraw-Hill Companies.

"President Obama calling for a renewal of the UN Security Council and the inclusion of India as one of its new permanent members will galvanise both societies, laying the groundwork for deeper collaboration at every level," it said.

Observing that the US midterm election season has resurrected unfounded fears about outsourcing of US jobs to India, the report also noted that the US Congress' recent move to raise H1-B and L1 visa fees for foreign companies has caused concern in the industry.

"These bumps in the road present both a challenge and an opportunity. The way ahead is full of promise, but in order to get there, executives in the US and India must bring along and carry public sentiment on both sides favouring deeper US-India commercial ties.

"To accomplish this, we must achieve positive change via specific advocacy," said the 12-page report.

It said the US should treat India as a favoured nation when it comes to information exchange relative to advanced technology or defence cooperation.

The US should also raise India's partner status and category tier-listing on the National Disclosure Policy, the US Munitions List, and the Commerce Controls List, it said.

Contending that American procedures are complicated when it comes to defence articles, it said the US should designate a senior official with the authority to act as ombudsman to resolve complex licensing and clearance issues.

At the same time, it says India has the responsibility to make its complex bureaucratic procedures defense procurement simpler. It also called for increasing the 26 per cent cap on FDI in the defence industry to 74 per cent.

USIBC also urged India to open the multi-brand retail sector to organised players.

Read more: Endorse India for permanent UNSC seat: USIBC asks Obama - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...s-Obama/articleshow/6857399.cms#ixzz147VqiBmR

Similar threads	Forum	Replies	Date
Obama in India: Good visit? Or very good visit?	Foreign Relations	31	Jan 29, 2015
Barack Obama's visit to India - 2015	Foreign Relations	89	Nov 21, 2014
a series of 6 articles by foreign policy analysts on President Obama's India visit.	Foreign Relations	5	Nov 5, 2010
Obama's visit to india: How to get round speed-breakers	West Asia & Africa	0	Oct 15, 2010

Obama's India Visit

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

The southern Man

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail

The Chairman

Air Warrior

Tihar Jail

Tihar Jail