Obama's India Visit

[neo29]

Obama looking forward to India trip, Michelle excited

NEW YORK: US President Barack Obama is looking forward to visiting India in early November and first lady Michelle is excited about the trip.

Obamas conveyed this to Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna at a reception they hosted at the Natural History Museum here in honour of heads of delegation attending the United Nations General Assembly.

Obama told Krishna that he was looking forward to visiting India and Mrs Obama added that she was excited about the trip, diplomats said.

Earlier, in his speech to the UN general assembly too he made a reference to his upcoming trip to India.

"Later this fall, I will travel to Asia. I will visit India, which peacefully threw off colonialism and established a thriving democracy of over a billion people," Obama told the annual gathering of world leaders in his second address to the world body since becoming president.

Obama looking forward to India trip, Michelle excited - The Times of India

 

[ajtr]

Petty controversy: Is Obama fleeing the country?​

:happy_2:
Obama will be flying to India just two days after the midterm elections — leading some bloggers to conclude he's eager to avoid the fallout from a "Democratic bloodbath"

Best Opinion: MichelleMalkin.com, The Times of India

The controversy: After moving up a scheduled trip to India next month, President Obama will be leaving for Mumbai on November 4, just two days after the midterm election — which at least one blogger has interpreted as "more evidence Obama knows there will be a Democratic bloodbath at the polls." Obama, says Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker, clearly wants to "get out of Dodge" to avoid "recriminations." Obama will also visit Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea during the 12-day trip, one of the longest tours in his presidency so far.
The reaction: Where's "the most dangerous place to be standing just after the November election"? asks Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com. "Between President Obama and the nation's emergency exit doorway." The president is getting out of the country as soon as the polls are closed. Actually, bringing the trip forward means that Obama will be in India for the celebrations on Diwali night, says Chidanand Rajghatta at The Times of India. Fans of "better India-U.S. ties" ought to "save some of those firecrackers" for Obama's arrival.

 

[ajtr]

Obama's India visit: No major game changer expected(Re-issue with corrections)​

Washington, Oct. 6 (ANI): The first ever visit by President Barack Obama to India will be marked by its ordinariness instead of its extraordinariness, if one goes by what US officials say. There are no big ticket items on the agenda and certainly nothing comparable to the civilian nuclear deal signed during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington in 2005.


Buzz up!
There is less than a month to go for President Obama's state visit to India and the momentum is just about picking pace. But that seems to be only from the Indian side. Commerce Minister Anand Sharma, National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, Defense Minister A.K.Antony and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee have been in and out of Washington D.C. meeting with their counterparts.


But there seems to be hardly any excitement in the local media about the impending 12-day state visit. India is hardly part of any public discourse. All talk about Asia, centres around China or else the problem child - Pakistan. India, as the outsourcing Mecca and jobs gobbling dragon, is in the periphery of interest among Americans outside of the capital.

Senior officials are trying hard to play down expectations of the Obama India tour. They hint that Obama cannot deliver much, whether at the bilateral level, or even at the multilateral level (read UNSC seat for India). President Obama is expected to broadly endorse India's candidature, but an outright backing of India, will be not be on anvil.

Obama will steer clear of contentious topics like Kashmir other than saying that India and Pakistan should resume the stalled process of talks on the prickly issue. He has been advised by senior administration officials and also think tanks that India will not take kindly to anything that remotely brooks as interference on Kashmir.

Speaking at the United States Institute of Peace on the issue of Kashmir, former ambassador Howard Schaffer said that the view in Washington is that the Kashmir dispute is like an albatross around India's neck, pulling it down from prosperity and development. The administration is aware, he said, that India would resent any major initiative suggestions on Kashmir.

Schaffer said "Obama would be well advised to urge India and Pakistan to keep all dialogue on Kashmir insulated from publicity."

Panelists at the USIP conference argued that India seemed to be at its wit's end on dealing with "the intifada-like situation in Kashmir". Schaffer, however, said that Obama was adopting a "hands off approach on Kashmir" and "has scrupulously avoided commenting on Kashmir."

That isn't about to change when he lands in India. Schaffer said: "The US is concerned with the human rights issue of the Kashmir problem and would want the wishes of the Kashmiri people realized, or else, at least taken into consideration" when talks are held between India and Pakistan in the near future. But how these wishes will be ascertained is something India will have to figure out, as America will not be forthcoming with suggestions.

US administration officials speaking on background said that Washington was willing to play a more proactive role on the Kashmir issue, as it had a direct bearing on regional stability and the US war in Afghanistan.

However, it is well aware that India is highly sensitive to any international attempts at mediation. So far, the US has only been pitching for a role of a facilitator, not even an interlocutor.

But even that isn't acceptable to India, rue US officials. So, at least for the time being, the best option would be to watch from the periphery and do some conflict management by preventing tensions between India and Pakistan to escalate to conflict levels.

The US is also keen to see what India brings to the table. Climate change and the nuclear liability bill are of course topics that might be debated upon.

American nuclear energy firms are unlikely to queue up after the strict provisions in the Indian bill. Climate change is a prickly topic as are agricultural subsidies and export control issues.

Mutual suspicion is high and it will still take a lot of working to convince either side that mutual cooperation in these areas will lessen the burden on both countries.

The contentious issue of China's growing assertiveness in the region is sure to come up, but it will be behind closed doors. President Obama has enough to deal with domestic commentators berating the administration on its weak stance regarding China. So, it is unlikely that India's growing discomfiture with Chinese ambitions will be publicly debated upon during the presidential visit.

If the Obamas can replicate even a fraction of what President Bill Clinton achieved during his highly successful (March 2000) visit to India or even that of Jimmy Carter (1978) and George Bush (2006), he would have achieved much. By Smita Prakash(ANI)

 

[ajtr]

Pak hopes Obama will take up Kashmir issue during India visit​

Pakistan today expressed hope that US President Barack Obama would make efforts to resolve the Kashmir problem during his visit to India next month, saying it has always encouraged its "friends" to use their influence with New Delhi on the issue.

"We hope that President Obama, during his visit to India, would take up this matter, particularly now that we are seeing every day peaceful protests in Jammu and Kashmir," foreign office spokesperson Abdul Basit said.

He was responding to a question at the weekly news briefing on whether Pakistan is looking to the US to help resolve the Kashmir issue.

"We have always encouraged our friends to use their influence with India in encouraging it to resolve the Jammu & Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN resolutions," Basit said.

Referring to the protests in Jammu & Kashmir, he said: "This is a very alarming situation and I think it is incumbent on the international community to take up this matter with India."

India has persistently ruled out international mediation on the Kashmir issue and insisted that it should be resolved bilaterally through negotiations.

Basit said the Kashmiris are determined to get "their right to self-determination through a peaceful struggle."

Responding to another question about the removal of bunkers and thinning out of security forces in Jammu and Kashmir, he said: "We have said earlier that half-hearted measures will not do. Such cosmetic measures have failed earlier."

He maintained that a "just and viable solution" to the Kashmir issue cannot "be found within the framework of the Indian Constitution."

"India, in our view, should seriously introspect and part with its untenable position. Instead of prevarication and procrastination, India should agree to implement the relevant UN resolutions and honour the democratic aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir," he said.

+ -

 

[ajtr]

Obama won't seek high-profile role in Kashmir: Lisa Curtis​

Strained relations between the US and Pakistan, which are notionally allies in the war on terror in Afghanistan, came close tobreaking point last week when Pakistan shut down a crossing on the Af-Pak border used by Nato troops.

Yet, the US cannot walk away from its troubled relationship, short of a "game-changer" event such as a successful terrorist strike in the US that emanates from Pakistani soil, explains Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation who served in former president George W Bush's administration. In an interview to DNA's, Curtis reasons that the Kashmir issue — which Pakistan projects as a "core issue" — is a red-herring, and the Obama administration has overcome its initial "naiveté" on it.

In the light of last week's events, how would you characterise the state of relations between the US and Pakistan?
This is a period of high tension. For the first time, Pakistan has closed down a border crossing on Nato's supply route. It looks like they did it primarily because of an incident where a Nato helicopter hit a Pakistani army post, but there's also frustration in Pakistan over the escalated drone strikes in the region. Even though Pakistani forces allow these strikes to occur, the Pakistani public is getting to feel it's an infringement on their sovereignty and that the US is taking Pakistani cooperation in the war on terrorism for granted.

Is Pakistan a reliable partner in the war on terror?
It's widely recognised in the US that Pakistan is not a reliable partner. The US does receive some cooperation from Pakistan in terms of information to disrupt terrorist plots and fighting militants in the tribal areas. But, there's also a lack of cooperation against terrorist groups like the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban that are still fighting US forces in Afghanistan. This leaves US officials frustrated in developing an effective Pakistan policy. They want to continue the tactical cooperation they're getting, but they don't know how to secure strategic cooperation for the US to win the war in Afghanistan.

Will the drone strikes be scaled back to placate Pakistani sensitivities?
I don't think so. The US has increased the drone campaign in part because they received intelligence about potential terror plots. It looks like the strikes were able to eliminate some of the people involved in that plot. The US will make decisions based on what is necessary to protect its citizens from future terror strikes — not based on any complaints that Pakistan may have on the issue.

Doesn't the US have leverage over Pakistan to challenge its double-dealing on terrorism?
The US doesn't have adequate leverage over Pakistan: the billions of dollars in aid it provided Pakistan has secured very little leverage. We are trying to figure out how to develop an effective policy towards Pakistan. What tends to trump the conversations is that people believe things could get much worse in Pakistan: if the US pushes too hard, we could have a situation where you have a rogue Pakistan in control of nuclear weapons, a nightmare scenario. One of the reasons we can't develop our leverage over Pakistan is because there is such a high risk of instability.

Can't the Nato troops and the US end their reliance on Pakistan for supply routes to Afghanistan?
We should be doing everything we can to find alternatives to the Pakistani supply routes. But I don't think we'll ever be able to replace what Pakistan provides. Even reducing our dependence would send a signal to Pakistan. I don't think we're going to see any change in the status quo until — god forbid! — there's a successful terrorist attack in the US. We should do everything to prevent such a possibility. This requires Pakistan to do more, and if we have to use some more stick — rather than continue to pour in aid — we should be doing it.

It's almost like the US is stuck in a bad marriage it can't walk out of"¦
That's a good analogy: it is a bad marriage the US can't walk out of. The US needs the cooperation it gets from Pakistan, and to that extent it does need Pakistan. And Pakistan too needs the US: it relies on US assistance. There is mutual dependency, but certainly the relationship isn't to the satisfaction of either side. It's difficult to say what the breaking point will be. But I'd speculate that a successful terrorist strike in the US that emanates from Pakistan's tribal areas would probably represent a game-changer.

To secure greater leverage over Pakistan, will the US offer it concessions on Kashmir?
I don't think so. The Kashmir issue is more a symptom of the larger problem between India and Pakistan; it's not as if dealing with Kashmir will make these terrorist groups melt away. The aims of India-focussed groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba are broader than Kashmir: they're trying to wreak havoc throughout India and dent the country's image as an emerging power. They use the situation in Kashmir to justify what they're doing, but they're not interested in Kashmir.

The idea that if the US intervenes in Kashmir, it would help focus Pakistan's attention on dealing with militant groups is a misunderstanding. The focus should be on convincing Pakistan to crack down on these groups for the sake of its own stability. The non-state actors that Pakistan supported to destabilise India are now destabilising Pakistan. The sooner Pakistan accepts that reality, the better.

Does the Obama administration realise that Kashmir is a red herring?
There's increased understanding on this point. Initially there was some naiveté: a connection was mistakenly made that if the US could resolve Kashmir, the problems of South Asia would go away. That's typical of new administrations: they come in with an idealistic view that the US can wave its magic wand and resolve problems. Kashmir represents Pakistani paranoia about an emerging India. At the heart of the issue is convincing Pakistan that building up its economy is the best way for it to protect its regional interests, not trying to wreak havoc on its neighbours. I think there's a growing understanding within the Obama administration on this point, so we won't see the president trying to seek a high profile role on Kashmir.

He's learnt the lesson from when as a presidential candidate he promoted the idea of a Kashmir envoy. He may raise the issue in private meetings and seek to get more information to enhance his own understanding of the region. The best way to pursue this may be encouraging New Delhi to deal with Kashmiri grievances, which we've seen over this summer. But the other part of it is convincing Pakistan not to take advantage of this situation like it did throughout the 1990s when it supported insurgent groups in the region.

 

[ajtr]

USIBC to host summit for Obama's India visit​

WASHINGTON -- The U.S.-India Business Council plans to organize a major business summit in Mumbai when President Barack Obama first visits India in November.

The Business and Entrepreneurship Summit in Mumbai on November 6, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Confederation of Indian Industry, will highlight the benefits of export-led American growth being generated by India's rising economy and new purchasing power, the new investment flowing from India reviving American businesses, and the innovation by young entrepreneurs utilizing U.S. know-how and technology, according to the USIBC.

"This Business and Entrepreneurship Summit in India's financial capital will be the president's first stop with the business community in India, enabling the president to experience first-hand the excitement underway, generated by the entrepreneurial spirit that unites our business communities, and which binds our two countries," said USIBC President Ron Somers. "The fact the president has agreed to address this business summit demonstrates the priority this president places on creating jobs for America by cultivating deeper commercial ties with India, the world's largest free-market economy."

"As only the sixth U.S. president to visit India, and the first to travel there during his first term, President Obama's aspirations for a stronger U.S.-India partnership will help align our two great democracies to shape the economic destiny of the 21st Century," Somers added. "The commercial focus of this visit will unleash jobs and opportunities that will benefit the American economy at a time when jobs are needed, while providing nurturing collaborations in technology that will ensure inclusive growth in India for decades to come."

The USIBC is launching its largest and most important executive mission to India to participate in the president's November 6th visit, according to the group. USIBC's goal is to greatly enhance two-way trade between the United States and India, which is now more than $50 billion; spur investment by India into the United States; create opportunities for greater U.S. export-led growth of high technology and high-end manufactured goods that will support India's $1.7 trillion infrastructure build-out; and foster new frontiers of technology collaboration that will help address the global challenges facing both countries -- energy security, food security, water security, and environmental protection.

"The scope for cooperation on every level by our companies and their Indian counterparts is limitless," said Somers. "Our aim is to organize a business summit that highlights these opportunities for American companies, and which results in new business partnerships and collaborations.

"One simple example of how a rising India translates into greater prosperity for the United States is Mumbai's new airport, which involved U.S. high-end manufacturing. The largest petroleum refinery in the world at Jamnagar was recently completed by Bechtel. Boeing aircraft are filling India's skies -- helping India maintain a growing civilian airline industry growing at 30 percent annually. This list goes on and on," added Somers.

The USIBC pointed out that American companies are exporting billions of dollars worth of goods and services to India, driving growth, job creation, and innovation throughout the United States. As Indian companies with strong balance sheets continue to invest billions of dollars into the United States, these investments have become important engines for the U.S. economic recovery. The USIBC Presidential Executive Mission and Business Summit will underscore the synergies for growth that bind us as partners and highlight why increased trade and investment is a "win-win" for both countries, according to the group.

This relationship of mutual reward, investment, and discovery will foster new and innovative solutions to key challenges, including clean water, green energy, health care, improved agriculture, technology cooperation, as well as modern infrastructure development -- all areas where American and Indian entrepreneurs can excel together.

"This is the time when the governments and private sectors of both countries must focus on sustained economic growth and job creation. USIBC stands ready with its partners to support the President's ambitious and vital agenda in India," said Somers.

The U.S.-India Business Council, formed in 1975 to advance commercial ties between the world's two largest free-market democracies, is hosted under the aegis of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and region.

 

[ajtr]

Is Michelle the reason for Obama's Amritsar visit?​

During his November visit to India [ Images ], Barack Obama [ Images ] will be paying a visit to Amritsar's [ Images ] Golden Temple [ Images ], a first for a United States president. This stopover may be unusual for a head of state and has many thinking: Is this visit being made especially for First Lady Michelle Obama [ Images ], who will be accompanying her husband to India? Maybe, for not many know of the Obamas' Punjab [ Images ] connection.
According to a report in the Chicago Tribune, Michelle Obama's uncle Nomenee Robinson served in Punjab in 1961 as a volunteer of Peace Corps, an organisation started by former US President John F Kennedy [ Images ] to improve health, education and economic prospects of some economically backward and developing nations.


A young architect and city planner working in Chicago's water department, Robinson assisted in building projects in Punjab. He had to use bricks made of sand and straw and just a dab of cement to build trekking huts, said the report.

Life was not easy, but his enthusiasm never flagged and seems like he has passed on some of it to his beloved niece Michelle.

After spending November 6 in Mumbai [ Images ], Obama will spend the next day in Amritsar.

Sikh Americans are ecstatic that Obama will visit the Golden Temple. Avatar Singh, chief of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee that is responsible for Sikh places of worship in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh [ Images ], will welcome Obama. Other senior leaders, led by Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, are also expected to receive the American President and the First Lady.

Sources said that in the few hours the Obamas will be in Amritsar, they will also visit an organic farm. The first lady is very interested in the subject, and has a miniature organic farm on the White House's South Lawn.

"It's really a dream come true moment," said Potomac, Maryland-based dentist Dr Rajwant Singh, chairman, Sikh Council on Religion and Education and executive director, Guru Gobind Singh Foundation. "This is absolutely a joyous moment for Sikhs not just in America, but all over the world," added Singh, was in the forefront of urging Obama to visit the Golden Temple. "I have been receiving scores of e-mails and calls from not only all across America but from also people in Punjab and Delhi [ Images ] and everywhere — even from Australia [ Images ] and the Middle East!"

He said it all had begun when "The President mentioned to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] at the state dinner in November about the Guru Nanak birthday celebrations the White House had hosted. This was such a complete surprise and such a wonderful and great gesture."

It was then, Singh said, "That's when I thought that this could work (urging Obama to visit the Golden Temple). That if I just plug this idea and somehow keep pushing this, it might work. And by god's grace it did."

Singh had started to work on it with Paul Montero, White House associate director for public engagement. Montero's portfolio includes reaching out to ethnic minorities and he is a regular feature at Sikh American events. He helped organise the Guru Nanak birth anniversary celebration at the White House.

In early July, Singh continued, he had written to the White House that if the President could visit the Golden Temple, it would "be a wonderful gesture since it's a symbol of interfaith understanding." He had pointed out that "the foundation stone of the temple was laid by a Muslim saint and the temple itself was constructed by Hindus and Sikhs and visited by people of all faiths from all over the world. I also mentioned that Punjab shares 370 miles of border with Pakistan and it will be a powerful message by the President to South Asia if he visits the temple."

If Obama visits the temple, Singh had added, "Americans will come to know about Sikhs and what Sikhism is all about. This will hopefully help to remove some of the misunderstanding and misperceptions about Sikhs in America and many of the difficulties Sikhs have faced and continue to face due to everything from racial profiling to mistaken identity and harassment at airports and other security barriers."

Montero had begun pushing for such a visit by getting this suggestion through to the powers that be in the National Security Council. The NSC then conferred with the State Department. At Foggy Bottom, senior officials familiar with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's [ Images ] close relationship with the Sikh community had endorsed it. Consequently, an advance US security team visited Amritsar.

Interestingly, it was at a fundraiser on her behalf at Singh's home several years ago for her re-election for the US Senate, where Clinton had made those famous remarks that the Sikh community loves her so much that she could be easily elected as the 'Democrat from Punjab.'

Administration sources acknowledged that there was "a strategic component" to the decision to visit the Golden Temple.

The President, the sources said, "has such great respect and admiration for Prime Minister Singh [ Images ]. This is shared by everyone in the administration from Secretary Clinton to Vice President Joe Biden, who all really, really look up to him as a man of immense wisdom and counsel."

Thus, the sources implied, Obama creating history as the first American President to visit the Golden Temple will be a major boost to the Indian prime minister in the eyes of his own community, not all of whom have looked upon him favorably.

"It has definitely played a role in this decision," one source said. "No doubt about it."

 

[neo29]

No Defence Agreement during Obama visit

Officials coordinating next month's visit to India of American president, Barak Obama, have been told to rule out a big-ticket signing ceremony for two defence safeguards agreements that the US has pressed for. Senior MoD sources tell Business Standard that Defence Minister AK Antony, during his visit to Washington last month, bluntly told US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that India would not sign the agreements, which Washington calls the "foundation" for transferring high-tech communications equipment to India.

The two agreements are: a Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA); and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA).

In addition, Mr Antony also conveyed India's unwillingness to sign a Logistics Support Agreement, or LSA, which would allow either country's military units to plug into the military logistics infrastructure of the other, anywhere in the world, with accounting on a book debit basis.

Remarks a MoD official who was present during the meetings in Washington, "People who believe that Mr Antony is a mild man who does not take strong positions should have seen the clarity with which he told the US delegation that India sees no benefits in signing these agreements."

Advising Antony not to sign the CISMOA and BECA is India's military. The IAF believes that these seemingly innocuous agreements --- which bind India to safeguard US communication equipment and codes that the American military also uses --- would also ensure that US-sourced equipment with the IAF, such as the C-130J Super Hercules and the C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft, remains interoperable with US forces.

"The US is keen to operate with us", explains a senior IAF air marshal. "We see no benefits in being interoperable with them. So why should we be hustled into signing these agreements?"

The Pentagon has been arguing that, without the CISMOA and BECA, India would get less than cutting-edge electronics on the systems that it buys from the US. During a visit to New Delhi on 20th Jan 10, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had remarked, "[These agreements] are preponderantly in India's benefit, because they give high-tech systems additional high-tech capabilities"¦ are enablers, if you will, to the very highest quality equipment."

But, on Thursday, the IAF head, Air Chief Marshal PV Naik, rejected that logic, insisting that the absence of the CISMOA and BECA ""will not make any substantial difference to our operational capabilities."

Now, leaked contract documents appear to support the air chief's viewpoint. A draft contract for the six C-130J Super Hercules transporters that India bought from Lockheed Martin (posted on the Indian military blog, Livefist, and verified as correct by Lockheed Martin sources) reveals that just five items have been denied to India as a result of the non-signature of CISMOA and BECA.

The draft contract notes that the five items "are deleted/changed from the C-130J India Air Force (sic) configuration at this time. These items may be added when CISMOA is signed between USG (US Government) and Government of India."

These items are all communications interfaces between the aircraft, and friendly forces on the ground. Since the C-130J is customised for Special Forces operations --- especially air-transporting commandos to a landing area that has been secured by friendly ground forces --- the aircraft needs secure communications links between the airborne and the ground forces, including an identification system to ensure that an enemy radio cannot lure the C-130J to an unsecured landing ground through a fake message.

The IAF believes that it can make do with the commercially available electronics that have been fitted in the C-130J as alternatives to the US Air Force's safeguarded systems. The US Air Force systems that have been denied: AN/ARC-222 (SINCGARS) Key Generator; Mode 4 Crypto Applique; Secure Voice (HF); Secure Voice (UHF & VHF); and Voice SATCOM.

Ajai Shukla
Business Standard

 

[ajtr]

No headscarf, Obama may skip Golden Temple visit​

US President Barack Obama's visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar is likely to be called off after a ticklish question on what he should use to cover his head put his aides in a tight spot. Moreover, a packed schedule in Mumbai and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's plan to host a dinner for Obama on November 7 left a very narrow window for Amritsar.
But it was the first question which created more doubt — what should Obama use to cover his head when he visits the Golden Temple?

The White House team which visited India last month ruled out Obama wearing the traditional scarf on his head. Indian officials were informally told that Obama wearing a headscarf to visit the Golden Temple may convey an image of him appearing to be a Muslim. This is one misinterpretation Obama's advisors did not want at any cost, given the political sensitivities over this issue in the US.

As a result, a final decision on whether Obama would visit the Golden Temple was always kept pending. An American official is said to have explained at one of the pre-visit meetings that each day Obama has to remind the US that he should not be mistaken for a Muslim just because his middle name is Hussain. For this reason, considerable thought was being given to what Obama could wear without offending Sikh sentiments.

Obama's aides finally came up with the idea of a "modified" baseball cap. It would have to be modified because the Golden Temple does not permit a baseball cap instead of a headscarf. In fact, the temple authorities have no problems with skull caps.

As Giani Gurbachan Singh, head priest of the Golden Temple, puts it: "We have no problems if he wears a skull cap, the kind that Muslims wear to the mosque — or any other cap that is modified to something similar. But we don't allow baseball caps or Army hats."

It is within these red lines that Obama's aides had to find the appropriate headgear which would serve his domestic political purpose while taking care not to hurt Sikh sentiments. The Indian government, on its part, studiously stayed away from this issue, maintaining that it was for US authorities to resolve.

Obama, who arrives here on November 6, will first touch down in Mumbai, where he plans to visit a 26/11 memorial and Mani Bhawan, where Mahatma Gandhi used to stay. He was then scheduled to go to Amritsar for this brief and only religious engagement in the itinerary.

 

[S.A.T.A]

Inferring intelligence data and reconstructing a plausible conspiracy to carry out a terror attack, is tricky business and quite often there is a thin line between a potential threat and spoof.On hindsight American security establishment could have prevented the 9/11,the botched attempt to set of explosion in time square was narrowly averted by divine providence,despite the suspect was under the surveillance of US security agencies for quite sometime(they barely managed to nab him on way out of the country).While we can never know the real story we have to presume that although Headley's activities were known to US intelligence, they probably did not have the heads up on the actual plot and its timing.

An aspiring great power like Indian cannot be presumptive about its relations with other great powers of the world.There are no friends and enemies,where interests converge we become friends,where interest collide we become enemies.While America's relationship with Pakistan's presents a tactical challenge to the indian establishment,we cannot be unaware of the fact that there is also strategic challenges which demand more long term posturing and planning.As far as the emerging geostrategic entente in Eurasia goes,it cannot be denied there is room Indo-US convergence of interest(for various reasons which have been discussed in this forum itself)

 

[SHASH2K2]

Obama mission: Billions to Pakistan, billions from India
WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is lining up at least $ 2 billion in fresh, new military aid to Pakistan even as it is lobbying for billions of dollars in defense sales to India ahead of the US President's visit to the region early November.

Two weeks before the India trip however, the US is all set to shower yet another round of military largesse on its dubious ally, ostensibly to help it fight extremists, who by Washington's own accounts are fostered, protected, and promoted by Pakistan.

The aid package is set to be announced during the US-Pakistan "strategic dialogue" – the second this year – starting Wednesday in Washington DC.

The arms bonanza comes just weeks after India's defense minister AK Antony conveyed New Delhi's reservations to Washington about US arms to Pakistan invariably being lined up against India, something even the Obama administration has on occasions recognized.

It also comes amid stunning disclosures pointing to direct ISI (and therefore the Pakistani state's) involvement in the 26/11 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, which sites President Obama is expected to visit on November 6. Six Americans were among 172 people killed in the carnage.

On top of this, a top Nato official said this week that Osama bin Laden was living in "relative comfort" in Pakistan, protected by locals and some members of the country's intelligence agencies, following up similar charges earlier by secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Despite these developments, the Obama administration evidently places its trust in Pakistan's credentials in the war on terror, and has determined that Islamabad needs to be militarily strengthened to fight extremism.

It is getting around the Indian protest that it is needlessly arming an adventurous and unrepentant ally that uses terrorism as a state policy by terming the military aid a "security assistance package."

American officials who have briefed the media on the subject ahead of the "strategic dialogue" say the package, totaling as much as $2 billion over five years, is aimed at helping Pakistan fight extremists on its border with Afghanistan.

The package will be in the form of financial aid under the American Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which in turn will help Pakistan purchase weapons and defense equipment like helicopter gunships and communication equipment produced in the United States.

It is aimed at addressing Pakistan's insistence it does not have the capability to go after terrorists, and needs more support from the United States, according to the New York Times and CNN, which both reported the development on Monday.

The latest US largesse for Pakistan, which is separate from the five-year, $ 7.5 billion aid under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, comes even as Washington is lobbying fiercely for greater Indian defense purchases worth billions of dollars as New Delhi seeks to shore up its military.

India has finalized nearly $ 10 billion worth of military purchases from the US in recent months, including a deal in 2009 for eight Boeing P-81 maritime patrol aircraft worth $2.1 billion and the sale this year of 10 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Aircrafts worth $5.8 billion, the largest defense deal with India in US history.

An even bigger piece of action is in the pipeline – a purchase worth more than $ 10 billion for 126 Multi-Role Combat Aircraft that New Delhi is seeking, and for which US companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin are in the race.

While India's will be paying hard cash for all these transactions, Pakistan, which was already broke before it was overrun by floods of biblical proportions and reduced to begging, will essentially be getting freebie military hardware from the US in the name of fighting terrorism.

The US aid comes despite criticism from Washington that Pakistan's wealthy, including its political leadership, is ducking from paying taxes, and US tax-payers are having to pick up the tab for Pakistan.

In fact, ahead of the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, Pakistan has made no move to reform its tax collection as demanded by secretary of state Hillary Clinton and top European Union officials recently.

Instead, the Pakistani delegation is coming to Washington with a laundry list of demands, including a nuclear deal that will bring it on par with India, greater US role in resolving the Kashmir issue, and taking into account Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan.

The Pakistanis are even pressing for a stopover by President Obama in Islamabad during his November visit to India, according to some reports.

The Pakistani delegation for the "strategic dialogue" this week will be formally led by the country's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and will have cabinet ministers of defense and finance, among others.

But the real power and influence behind the Pakistani push for greater US aid will be the country's army chief, Pervez Ashfaq Kayani, who is part of the team, notwithstanding Washington's reservations about the military's continuing influence in Islamabad.


Read more: Obama mission: Billions to Pakistan, billions from India - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...m-India/articleshow/6776948.cms#ixzz12phS4gBN

 

[SHASH2K2]

I am sure this is going to be worst presidential Visit by any USA president . Obama is complete moron and is hell bent on destroying USA relationship with India. first hike in Visa fee and now this aid to Pakistan. we will definitely see lots of fireworks behind the scene.Obama is behaving as if he is helpless infront of almighty Pakistan. Pakistan is able to extract whatever it want from Obama and in return we are getting screwed. I was supporter of MRCA going in favour of USA for other geopolitical intrests but now we should not give any extra order to USA after whatever we have ordered. NO more MRCA or any other equipments from USA . Let them supply whatever Pakistan wants. India shouldnot ask for any further military equipments from them . They make profits from sale to India and that money goes to Pakistan as military aid . What a balance they have got.

 

[ajtr]

Queries ahead of Obama meet upset India Inc​

Indrani Bagchi, TNN, Oct 20, 2010, 01.47am IST


NEW DELHI: Top honchos keen on attending the US president's business event in Mumbai on November 6 will have to answer intrusive questions on whether they engage in "BPO" or "outsourcing" work for American companies in India.

The US-India Business Council (USIBC), which is one of the hosts of the event, appears to have brought US domestic politics to Indian shores. That may end up clouding probably the best of India-US relationships -- of the business communities.

All prospective participants at the daylong presidential event at the Oberoi will have to answer a questionnaire -- how much they export to the US, how much they import from the US, how many people do they employ in the US and how many in India. And then, whether they are engaged in BPO or outsourcing work for US companies in India.

India Inc is unhappy and angry. They wanted to have a high-profile networking event with US President Barack Obama. Two premier Indian business organizations, CII and FICCI, are co-hosts of the event and, sources said, have stoutly opposed Indian entrepreneurs having to answer this questionnaire. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is listed as a special speaker at the event -- it is believed he may address the outsourcing issue.

The USIBC wanted to charge $500-$1,000 for every participant. This went against the grain for Indian business organizations. "We never charge participants either in the US or in India, particularly for head of state events.

This is a matter of prestige," said senior CII officials. After many arguments, the USIBC has now agreed not to charge members of CII or FICCI. But that is offset by a huge charge for companies that are "sponsors" -- they will have to pay $75,000 each, which has led to many complaints from the Indian side.

Outsourcing is a huge Obama bugbear. In the past few years, he has hit out against outsourcing a number of times, with particular reference to India. In an election year, this issue has gained a lot of momentum in a US racked by economic problems. In the past few weeks, Obama has gone on record to say, "We should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders. There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas."

 

[ajtr]

No headscarf, Obama may skip Golden Temple visit​

US President Barack Obama's visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar is likely to be called off after a ticklish question on what he should use to cover his head put his aides in a tight spot. Moreover, a packed schedule in Mumbai and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's plan to host a dinner for Obama on November 7 left a very narrow window for Amritsar.
But it was the first question which created more doubt — what should Obama use to cover his head when he visits the Golden Temple?

The White House team which visited India last month ruled out Obama wearing the traditional scarf on his head. Indian officials were informally told that Obama wearing a headscarf to visit the Golden Temple may convey an image of him appearing to be a Muslim. This is one misinterpretation Obama's advisors did not want at any cost, given the political sensitivities over this issue in the US.

As a result, a final decision on whether Obama would visit the Golden Temple was always kept pending. An American official is said to have explained at one of the pre-visit meetings that each day Obama has to remind the US that he should not be mistaken for a Muslim just because his middle name is Hussain. For this reason, considerable thought was being given to what Obama could wear without offending Sikh sentiments.

Obama's aides finally came up with the idea of a "modified" baseball cap. It would have to be modified because the Golden Temple does not permit a baseball cap instead of a headscarf. In fact, the temple authorities have no problems with skull caps.

As Giani Gurbachan Singh, head priest of the Golden Temple, puts it: "We have no problems if he wears a skull cap, the kind that Muslims wear to the mosque — or any other cap that is modified to something similar. But we don't allow baseball caps or Army hats."

It is within these red lines that Obama's aides had to find the appropriate headgear which would serve his domestic political purpose while taking care not to hurt Sikh sentiments. The Indian government, on its part, studiously stayed away from this issue, maintaining that it was for US authorities to resolve.

Obama, who arrives here on November 6, will first touch down in Mumbai, where he plans to visit a 26/11 memorial and Mani Bhawan, where Mahatma Gandhi used to stay. He was then scheduled to go to Amritsar for this brief and only religious engagement in the itinerary.

Obama with Skull Cap at Wailling Wall​

 

[S.A.T.A]

That's a Jewish skull cap hence no sensitivities involved.What spunk to charge an American president of hypocrisy, oval office has never seen a hypocrite in its long history.

 

[ajtr]

That's a Jewish skull cap hence no sensitivities involved.What spunk to charge an American president of hypocrisy, oval office has never seen a hypocrite in its long history.

Well golden temple authorities were ready to allow skull cap too.

As Giani Gurbachan Singh, head priest of the Golden Temple, puts it: "We have no problems if he wears a skull cap, the kind that Muslims wear to the mosque — or any other cap that is modified to something similar. But we don't allow baseball caps or Army hats."

 

[S.A.T.A]

A skull cap becomes a Jewish skullcap only when its worn with a bonafide Jew round about you to bear witness.US officials will be hard pressed to find them in Amritsar.Remember the couple of Sikh's who where thrashed for looking like Osama in the days following 9/11.Now imagine thousands of Osama lookalikes(pun totally intended) and Obama amidst them in a skull cap,a total political blasphemy.Obama might as well seek for indian Visa and settle here(pun not intended)

 

[The Messiah]

ahh the land of freedom!!!

where the president himself is afraid to do what the countries own constitution holds dear.

 

[ajtr]

India–U.S. Relations on the Eve of President Obama's Visit​

U.S.–India relations have continued to improve since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's trip to the United States in November 2009. This November, President Obama will visit India as part of the continuing transformation in bilateral ties. In the second of a series of events previewing this historic trip, Ambassador Shivshankar Menon, India's National Security Advisor, spoke at the Carnegie Endowment on the nature of the U.S.-India relationship and the challenges and opportunities faced by both countries. Carnegie's Jessica Mathews moderated.

Shared Values

Although the relationship between the United States and India is based on a number of common interests, the two nations also share values that help nurture a unique bilateral relationship, Menon stated. As India works to transform the lives of its own citizens, the values of pluralism, democracy, tolerance, and secularism it applies in this effort are familiar to the American people.

Nuclear Liability Legislation

One major point of contention between the United States and India has been the status of legislation protecting nuclear suppliers from liability, a part of the landmark Indian-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement. Recently, the Indian parliament passed legislation designed to limit liability, but many American commentators have argued that the legislation does not go far enough and is not consistent with international norms. Menon explained that the Indian government's lawyers believe that the legislation does not impose additional conditions or risks on the suppliers and India does not see any problems satisfying suppliers from a practical standpoint. The Indian government, he added, is hoping to discuss the legislation and the concerns surrounding it directly with American companies and reach an understanding before Obama's visit in November.

Regional Relations

Menon spoke about some of the important regional relationships that inform India's foreign policy and affect its interactions with the United States.

Afghanistan: India and the United States both share the goal of a peaceful, moderate Afghanistan and work to further this goal in their own ways. India has concentrated on rebuilding the country with about $1.5 billion in commitments aimed at making a greater impact on the ground.

Pakistan: While India is willing to enter into a discussion on any issue with Pakistan, the talks will only proceed so far as long as India faces terrorist attacks from Pakistani territory, Menon said. The democratically elected Indian government must remain sensitive to the public opinion of its citizens in this area, he added.

Southeast Asia: An open, flexible, and inclusive regional architecture is the best choice for Southeast Asia, Menon said. Such a vision for the region would include the United States as an Asian power. In a region with such fluid power dynamics, Menon added, the architecture must have space for changing political, economic, and social circumstances and be capable of evolving.

China: There has been a gradual appreciation of China's currency against India's currency, so currency value is not as significant an issue in India's relations with China as it is for the United States. Still, Menon asserted that the value of the Chinese renminbi is an issue of global concern.

Myanmar: India has made attempts to engage Myanmar on issues of development and to encourage Myanmar's attempts to establish democracy in the country. The upcoming parliamentary elections in November could be a significant step in that direction, but that remains to be seen.

Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka is in the middle of trying to repair the damage from its civil war. The country must work to reconcile various factions, effect a political recovery, and the restore its democracy, Menon said. Even in the middle of its civil war, Sri Lanka managed to maintain a democratic polity and a relatively open economy, he said.

 

[ajtr]

The Obama bargain ​

To counter emerging Pakistani and Chinese threats, India must make the most of the US president's November state visit, says N.V.Subramanian.

20 October 2010: Threats to India from both the Pakistani and Chinese fronts are likely to increase following Barack Obama's November state visit which is why it is advisable to keep expectations low on the US president's tour of the country so that it can more easily be declared a success. The explanation for this is as follows.

Barack Obama is an elected US president but he has a bureaucratic mindset for all his rhetorical flourishes. He sees no further potential for Indo-US relations if it comes at continuing costs to the American economy and he is also deeply wedded to Democratic Party and non-proliferation ideologies to continue to condone India's status as one of the NPT outlier states.

Consequently, there will be very little give on the American side when Obama comes visiting. For any small concession that the US makes, India would be expected to concede greatly, on defence equipment sales, for example, or UNSC veto power, or nuclear trade, which the Manmohan Singh government cannot afford to risk accepting.

With the previous George W.Bush administration, it was different. There are no two opinions that Bush was a bold, if often unwise, president. Obama is risk-averse. With Bush, Manmohan Singh could go out on a limb to save the nuclear deal, threatening to resign if the Congress party did not back him. Obama does not, and should not, merit similar derring-do, although there is nothing at stake quite like the nuclear deal.

Which is why it would be prudent and sensible to permit symbolism, if it is unavoidable, to overtake substance during president Obama's trip. The unwillingness or inability of Obama to make concessions to India should be taken in stride but his visit itself should be capitalized upon for what it is worth. The reason for this is mentioned in the first paragraph, which is the growing near-term threat to India both from Pakistan and China.

India's apprehension of a two-front war simultaneously with Pakistan and China is something the Indian military has strategized on for a time. But the threats this writer articulates in this piece are more currently located in time, and pertain to specific situations obtaining in both Pakistan and China.

Pakistan is confronted with an existential threat as never before. The emphasis of its military-led dictatorial/ political classes would increasingly veer to prosecuting hostilities with India (limited, under a nuclear overhang, targeting Kashmir, either to possess it or to return international attention to it: Kargil II) to divert attention from grave internal problems.

The impending exit of the US from Afghanistan and the return to power of the Taliban there staunch Pakistani fears of an Indian threat to its western flanks. But the victory of jihadi nationalism in Afghanistan would also incentivize Pakistan's military and militarized ruling classes to attempt another Kashmir "adventure" with India. With India's relations with Obama's US not as close as they were under Bush (although that did not prevent 26/11), Pakistan would be desperate to attempt renewed hostilities (commencing with the progressive breakdown of cross-border ceasefire) to turn away attention from its existential angst.

A willing partner in this Pakistani exercise, covertly or overtly, would be China, whose fiction of a "peaceful rise" has been rudely rocked by the dramatic Nobel Peace award to the Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo. In the coming weeks and months, Liu may become a rallying point for a new pro-democracy movement in China, whose chances of success, however, presently appear slim.

China's totalitarian rulers have a potent tool of nationalism to preserve and protect their power, which they have now and again directed against Japan and the US, and which they will employ generally against the West to counter the effect of the Liu Nobel. But hard Han nationalism may also be deployed against India, which through the Chinese prism may appear a stand-alone soft state implicated, according to China, in the decades' old Tibetan unrest. China's internal insecurities arising from Liu and Pakistan's existential crisis may fuse to form a major threat against India, which would magnify if the Barack Obama visit signals any manner of plateauing out or drift in Indo-US ties.

Therefore, care must be taken all around, including by strategic analysts (which encompasses this writer as well), not either to hype Obama's visit or to trash it. Since Indo-US relations were first reinvigorated by A.B.Vajpayee and Bill Clinton, there has been considerable positive build-up, and it is unreasonable to expect the same pace to maintain through successive administrations. It is significant that Barack Obama attaches so much symbolic value to relations with India, and India must return the sentiment while safeguarding national interests.

It is part of national interest to keep close ties with the United States even while being watchful of China and the China-Pakistan nexus. Russia seems to be solidifying relations with China which should concern India and make all the more important that existing good relations especially with the US are kept intact and the boat held steady. If the likely emerging dark situation post the Barack Obama visit is considered, it becomes imperative for India to make the most of the US presidential tour next month.