McCain sees India, U.S. teaming up against "troubling" China

[ejazr]

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2...india-u-s-teaming-up-against-troubling-china/

As President Barack Obama begins his visit to India, his erstwhile rival John McCain is voicing hope that Washington and New Delhi will tighten up their military cooperation in the face of China's "troubling" assertiveness.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told a think-tank audience in Washington on Friday that the two huge democracies were natural allies in the quest to temper China's ambitions.

"While India and the United States each continue to encourage a peaceful rise for China, we must recognize that one of the greatest factors for shaping this outcome and making it more likely is a robust U.S.-India strategic partnership," McCain said.

McCain suggested that India and the United States could increase the level of representation at each other's central military commands and work to make their armed forces more "interoperable" through joint military exercises and sharing of intelligence.

"There's no reason why we can't work to facilitate India's deployment of advanced defense capabilities such as nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, missile defense architecture as well as India's inclusion in the development of the joint strike fighter," the next generation fighter aircraft being developed by the United States, the United Kingdom and others, McCain said.

The United States should also firmly back India's desire for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, he said.

McCain said both Washington and New Delhi hope that China's rise to power is accompanied by Chinese decisions to wield that power responsibly, but said recent moves by Beijing hinted otherwise.

"From undermining the multilateral effort to pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their illicit nuclear weapons programs, to resisting entreaties to revalue its currency, to provocatively contesting territorial disputes with several Asian nations. There appears to be"¦.a new assertiveness on the part of China, and that is very troubling," McCain said.

McCain said a major problem was India's concern that the United States was not playing to win in Afghanistan, which could ultimately leave India's traditional rival Pakistan with an upper hand.

"If we quit Afghanistan before positive conditions can be shaped and sustained on the ground, the consequences will certainly be terrible for us, but will be even worse for India which will have a terrorist safe haven on its periphery," said McCain, who has repeatedly questioned Obama's pledge to begin drawing down U.S. forces in Afghanistan next summer.

The United States needs to lean harder on Paksitan's military to crack down on extremist elements who threaten India, Afghanistan and the United States, McCain said, adding that India in particular had shown "extraordinary restraint" in the face of provocations such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks which were carried out by gunmen alleged to have Pakistani ties.

But he said that patience was wearing thin and the next attack could spell serious trouble.

"If god forbid our luck runs out, I don't know if restraint will be an option, either for India or for us," he said.

 

[ganesh177]

It was india's bad luck that mccain did not got elected back then instead of obama. So if his party has gained some ground in this mid term elections, then no doubt it is some good news to india. Mccain is the guy who will be batting for india.

 

[neo29]

Most think we may need US to counter China, but in reality US will be using India in every way to counter China. Lot of difference between the two ...

 

[sandeepdg]

Actually, its a two way street, none of us can do without the other when it comes to China, though the US is still very much in a position to take them head on, but won't be for very long and would have to fall back on India or some other nation's support.

 

[ejazr]

US should support India's pursuit for UNSC permanent seat, says McCain

Nov.6 : United States' Republican Party has stated that America should fully back India's pursuit for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Senior Republican Senator John McCain has said, "if we want India to join us in sharing the responsibilities for international peace and security, then the world's largest democracy needs to have a seat at the high table of international politics."

McCain said it while speaking on Indo-US ties at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington Friday night.

India, McCain said, must be represented in the foundational institutions of the global order.

He said, the United States should push for India's inclusion in the International Energy Agency, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and those parts of the global non-proliferation regime from which India is still excluded.

McCain's endorsement for India's bid for the UN Security Council gain significance given the bipartisan nature of support on Indo-US relationship and the emergence of Republican Party as a strong force after the Tuesday's mid-term polls, in which it gained majority in the US House of Representatives.

It maybe noted that the Republicans won majority in the US House of Representative in the November 2 mid-term elections.

Outsourcing of US jobs to India and other countries was one of the major issues during the election. (ANI)

 

[thakur_ritesh]

Indian diplomats suggesting they are going to have a much more cordial relationship with the newly elected house of representatives where now the republicans dominate and with the senate where republicans have made a pretty good come back should certainly tell us with which party the Indians remain more comfortable working with, this confidence also dates back to the very good working relationship we have had with them over the past so many years at various levels, be it in senate uptill 2006 or by way of having them as part of various indo-US groupings or by being a part of very strong pro-india lobby within the power corridors.

The republicans do not carry the baggage of the working class and the unionists so they can freely talk of free market even in these down times which means they will never be averse to the concept of outsourcing or would be more open to seeing Indians enter on H1B1 visas or have a free and a rapidly growing trade with india which means most of Indian interests and more specific our corporate interests get pretty well taken care of, on the hind side the democrats with the baggage they carry of their traditional voters will talk about stuff that hampers Indian interests directly.

Then republicans have a classic view of countering china and that is by creating a counter balance much like the way they had a classic view of countering the USSR via china as a counter weight, again something that argues well for india since by being in such a situation the Indian leadership's interest is to play this paranoia further up something the PM was seen doing last November in the US when he was on a state visit but didn't get much of a response from the democrats and in the bargain extract as much as is possible and in here india wants to target much larger access to the American market which would give a huge fillip to Indian exports and come across as a challenge to the "made in china", make sure we get the UNSC permanent seat in a pretty quick time, and have a "special and exclusive relationship" where we have access to American military equipment sans any conditions be it those pacts or when in need to use them then sanctions proof and these are some pretty difficult deliverables to be had but these are certainly not impossible with a republican dominated senate and a republican president, only they can deliver a jackpot like that.

Today listening to Ronen Sen a very interesting point came along which when it was made by the then prez bush got over shadowed in the controversy when PM suggested bush was loved back home in india, he then pointed out that he as the president looks forward to india's and the PM manmohan singh's suggestions on how the region needs to evolve and he remains in touch with him on key issues that keep creeping up in the region something obama said to the Chinese about the region in his very first trip to china that irritated the Indians big. A thing like this does show us how deeply the republicans view relationship with india, something that is missing on the democrat front.

All in all republicans in the long run certainly argue well for the Indian cause and history of the last 50years suggests republicans are more likely to govern the US than the democrats, and so it should be for the next 50years.

But hey what the hell aren't they all freemasons , so how does it matter any way, all one would want is Indian leadership also have a few freemasons and Indian interests will be well taken care of either way as the new "world order" evolves!

 

[pmaitra]

It was india's bad luck that mccain did not got elected back then instead of obama. So if his party has gained some ground in this mid term elections, then no doubt it is some good news to india. Mccain is the guy who will be batting for india.

Gentlemen, allow me to throw some caution in the winds. Do you really want McCain to be the President? He is old, and does not know what he is talking about and talked a lot of nonsense about Chechnya (he might as well about Kashmir in future). He once claimed that Putin was the President of Germany. He even raked up rhetoric during Russo-Georgian War. Moreover, McCain would have faced the same economic disadvantages that Obama is facing today. He too would have cut down on out-sourcing and VISAs to foreign workers, thus negatively affecting India.

The question is not Democrats or Republicans, the question is, whether the current US President can be as beneficial to India as George Bush was?

My recommendation is: be cautious before blindly supporting McCain!

 

[Ray]

It is an interesting observation that though India has a socialist orientation, she has profited more from the right wing parties of US and UK i.e. Republicans and Conservative rather than from like minded parties i.e. Democrats and Labour.

Notwithstanding, Obama is visiting strategically important nations to US geopolitics i.e. India, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan - all along the periphery of China and nations not too ''impressed'' with China.

 

[amoy]

Don't forget it was a Republican pres. who built up diplomatic ties with PRC while 'discarding' ROC ( Nixon)

The republicans do not carry the baggage of the working class and the unionists so they can freely talk of free market

Democrats or Republican - may be different in internal politics. But when it comes to foreign policy it may be naive to say one is less self serving than the other. If McCain had won the election it could have been Obama who said what McCain was singing now as opposition, in the US bipartisan politics

 

[ejazr]

I think the point being made is that Republicans and McCain are good for India and thats about it really. I mean obviously McCain and his number two Sarah Palin would probably be problematic to say the least for America, butit will still take them 10-20 years to run America to the ground. Obama is intelligent no doubt and did a really good job in stopping the US economy going into a depression, but his foreign policy is very subtle and nuanced. He wants to make friends with everyone and hence you had the G2 idea being floated around earlier, the reachout to Iran and so on. He still has been more harsh on Pakistan than Bush though. Bush hardly gave any attention to Pakistan/AFghanistan and gave Mush a free hand. Obama however, has increased drone strikes 50 times and done cross border strikes atleast three times in the last two years. The whole attention is now on Af-Pak after Bush's unncessary distraction of Iraq. But he still is very nuanced and slow in his approach.

The Republicans tend to take a black and white appraoch rather than a pragmatic nuanced appraoch. Partiularly as they have been moving more towards the ideological extremes rather than centrist policies. So in that sense India might benefit more as there would be black and white appraoch to India as being firmly supported by the US on all accounts. The intersting question is will Mcain have the House and Senate majority to push all his policies through.
It looks like its going to be a divided house for a long time no matter who is in power.

 

[anoop_mig25]

i like to point out Sarah Palin is memeber of tea party group which are famous for their protectionist ideas besides this members havent came with some good ideas how to reive american economy so i do not think republicans of tea party members would good for indian economy or say call centers.

besides obama as democrat presidents has been achieved what other demcract president could not .

but one think i would like to point out whenevr any american president wants to rectify CTBT he/his party looses majority in EITHER OF HOUSES isn`t there something really fishy

 

[cw2005]

In case war broke out between China and India, the countries benefit from the war would be USA and its European friends. India and China, without any major instance, would become the largest economy and most influential countries in next twenty to thirty years. I don't believe the white peoples that have been enjoying in the top position would be doing nothing but standing aside and watching this. For the American, they should be worry about the Japanese. When USA getting weaker, it is not China that would be the main enemy, but Japan is. That is also why American refuse to supply top of line military equipment to them. Japanese are people won't forget the "hate" easily, they will pay back to the American when there is a chance, and reclaim all those island in the Pacific that USA took during the WWII. I deeply believe the leaders in both China and India know these and trying to avoid major conflict.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

If ever de-hyphenation between india and Pakistan were to happen with regards to our relations with the US, it had to happen today and how well it happened. Earlier on indo-US relations always had the Pakistan factor casting a shadowing over it, be it by way of Kashmir or by way of pak sponsored terrorism, but today a new script was written all over again. These two factors remain a concern area and issues that need to be addressed, but their priority in the direction indo-US relations will take has certainly diminished.

The relations have gone to an all new level and have spread across the board, you name a sector and this relationship is headed in that direction, never before has this happened and it is good to see all this happening on the merits and not on demerits like countering china or the Pakistan factor, which means the room for this relationship to prosper is that much more and wont be limited to one agenda, or on one personality, or on one party. Such kind of collaboration is hardly seen between india and any other country and this one has certainly taken its own unique course.

The real test will be on issues where there are conflict of interests but from the looks of it, it certainly seems like india will have its way to a certain extent and US will come around on those concern areas for india. The sense I have drawn is, US is looking at a much larger picture and in that they want to strongly hold on to india and they don't want to get bogged down with certain tricky issues.

Its great to see my stand taken in the 1st post has been completely proven wrong, I was getting pretty skeptic about the democrats and obama in particular, but how wrong I have been proven!

 

[Ray]

Don't forget it was a Republican pres. who built up diplomatic ties with PRC while 'discarding' ROC ( Nixon)


Democrats or Republican - may be different in internal politics. But when it comes to foreign policy it may be naive to say one is less self serving than the other. If McCain had won the election it could have been Obama who said what McCain was singing now as opposition, in the US bipartisan politics

Just one.

Check the overall lot.

Anyway, Nixon was impeached!

More than Kissinger, it was Brzezinsky, Democrat President Carter's man, who actually cemented the ties with China and lifted the dual use technology embargo which allowed China to become what it is today!