Friday, September 16, 2022

Can Washington Trust Modi's India As Key Ally in Asia?

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the summit meeting of the China-Russia sponsored Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan this week. India is a full member of this alliance which has been created to counter the US dominance in Asia. At the same time, New Delhi has also joined QUAD, a group of 4 nations (Australia, India, Japan and US) formed by the United States  to counter China's rise. Simultaneous membership of these two competing alliances is raising serious questions about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's real intentions and trustworthiness. Is this Indian policy shift from "non-alignment" to "all-alignment" sustainable? 

2022 SCO Summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Source: Xinhua

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO): 

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a political, economic and security organization designed to counter US dominance. It was founded by Beijing and Moscow in 2001. Currently, it has 8 members: China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran has signed a memorandum of commitment this week signaling its intention to join the SCO, underscoring the growing alignment between the U.S.'s top adversaries. India's participation in this alliance seems strange given its simultaneous membership of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. 

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD): 

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) is a strategic security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, and the United States that was initiated in 2007 by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to counter growing Chinese influence in Asia. India upset Japan recently when it joined the Russia-led Vostok-2022 military exercises held around a group of islands known as the southern Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan -- a territorial dispute that dates back to the end of World War II, according to Bloomberg. India scaled back its participation in the war games -- especially staying out of the naval exercises -- in response to the Japanese objections but it left a bad taste. 

Non-Alignment to All-Alignment: 

The contradictions inherent in the membership of both of these competing alliances are already being exposed by Mr. Modi's large and rapidly growing purchases of Russian energy and weapons despite western sanctions.  “India’s neutral public positioning on the invasion has raised difficult questions in Washington DC about our alignment of values and interests,” said Richard Rossow, a senior adviser on India policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Bloomberg News. “Such engagements -- especially if they trigger new or expanded areas of cooperation that benefit Russia -- will further erode interest among Washington policy makers for providing India a ‘pass’ on tough sanctions decision.”

34 comments:

Syed said...

Modi / India is projecting itself to be an independent country, standing tall among the giants.

Pakistan is a faqir subjugate to all groups - Sino-Russia, OPEC, US/UK/EU, etc.

Riaz Haq said...

Syed: "Modi / India is projecting itself to be an independent country, standing tall among the giants"


Standing tall among giants or sleeping with multiple competing giants????

Hikmat said...

Of course not. India can't help the US's strategic interests in any form or manner. Now is the time to say, "Mr Modi, Pak is 50 times more important than India"......

The loss in Afganistan is followed by putting the entire Europe into the fire.....

*VP Biden to the Afgan President Karzai: Pakistan is 50 times more important than Afganistan.

Majeed said...

Anglos do not trust India.

AUKUS was created after Indians lost the battles to both Pakistan and China.

Indians are not Ukranians.

Muzaffar Ahmed Khan said...

I think the world will very soon be divided into two new poles. One would be US-led, whereas China would lead one. India's partnership with QUAD and SCO simultaneously will not be sustainable in the long run. On the one hand, India has aligned its strategic interest with the US, but at the same time, it will not reduce its ties with its time-tested partner Russia.
Being in both opposing organizations will give the wrong signal to Washington DC, Tokyo, and Canberra about India's seriousness in their group. Therefore, India will have to decide its priorities. It can't keep its present ambiguous policy to both Quad and SCO for a long time.

Suhail H. said...

America will certainly not "trust" India as their ally, because international relations are based on mutual interest and not trusting as "friends", Americans will not be having such expectations. The only ruling elites that Americans trust to remain subservient to their instructions is Pakistani, who have no considerations of national priorities and interests.

Singh said...

This business of TRUST in international relations is a mirage and for the naive.
Nations work for their own interests and trust lasts (or is made to last) till that requirement is met. Stronger nations are little more blatant in showing their true colours while the weaker and poorer ones have to show a little diplomacy before showing the finger.
Pakistan played double game with US w.r.t Afghanistan. Did Pakistan break the trust here? Not really. It did what it thought was good for themselves. US must be aware of it and allowed it to go till it wanted. And then US showed what they thought of Pakistan. We all remember about the most awaited telephone call in the recent past, that never came. Suddenly US had a change of heart and declared a package for PAF F-16s. Did the trust return suddenly? No. It was for a reason guessed by quite a few. Interestingly after Bajwa’s visit to US.

India is aware about these realities and that’s the reason it has decided to walk along the US, only till it wants. It went it’s own way when Russia -Ukraine happened. India went ahead and bought oil from Russia. A number of nations including few in the neighbourhood couldn’t do the same. They feared a stick from the US.

If US wants India as a key ally on its own terms then it can go ahead and remove India from the so called list of trusted nations. Because India would do what is best for her and not the US.
Indian Foreign Minister has eloquently destroyed some of those who tried to make India toe their line. That’s likely to continue to a degree controlled or restricted by Indian economy and security situation in this part of the world.

Riaz Haq said...

Suhail: "America will certainly not "trust" India as their ally, because international relations are based on mutual interest and not trusting as "friends", Americans will not be having such expectations. The only ruling elites that Americans trust to remain subservient to their instructions is Pakistani, who have no considerations of national priorities and interests"


International relations are based on trust followed by verification. President Reagan put it best when he said, "Trust but verify".

We know that verification often disappoints. Example: The US and the West played the "China Card" by starting to supply China with capital and technology to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Now China has risen to challenge the US. Having had this experience before, the US will now likely monitor India's behavior closely as it plays the "India Card" against China. I suspect the flow of western capital and technology will most likely be proportional to the cooperation received from New Delhi.

As to your reference to the Pakistani "ruling elite that Americans trust to remain subservient", the history of US-Pakistan relations tells us otherwise.
Washington has often accused Pakistan of playing the "double game". Have you forgotten the "lies and deceit" tweet by Trump?

https://www.riazhaq.com/2018/01/general-petraeus-rejects-trumps-charges.html

And the US Ambassador Anne Patterson said on September 23, 2009: "The Pakistani establishment, as we saw in 1998 with the nuclear test, does not view assistance -- even sizable assistance to their own entities -- as a trade-off for national security vis-a-vis India".

https://www.riazhaq.com/2014/03/us-and-europe-must-accept-pakistan-as.html

Riaz Haq said...

As the world lurches through the growing pains of massive geopolitical change, the US’ relationship with India will increasingly take center stage. Washington likes to see itself as providing a geopolitical center of gravity that is inherently attractive to nations like India, especially against regional competitors such as China. As the US is about to discover, however, India and China have a shared ambition about who should dominate the Pacific in the coming century, and it doesn’t include the US. Op Ed by Scott Ritter

https://www.energyintel.com/00000183-21d9-d467-adc7-21fdd54f0000

On Aug. 19, India’s minister of external affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, gave a speech at a university in Thailand where he stated that relations between India and China were going through “an extremely difficult phase” and that an “Asian Century” seemed unlikely unless the two nations found a way to “join hands” and start working together.

For many observers, Jaishankar’s speech was taken as an opportunity for the US to drive a wedge between India and China, exploiting an ongoing border dispute along the Himalayan frontier to push India further into a pro-US orbit together with other Western-leaning regional powers. What these observers overlooked, however, was that the Indian minister was seeking the exact opposite from his speech, signaling that India was, in fact, interested in working with China to develop joint policies that would seek to replace US-led Western hegemony in the Pacific.

Struggle for Leadership

More than six decades ago, then-US Senator John F. Kennedy noted that there was a “struggle between India and China for the economic and political leadership of the East, for the respect of all Asia, for the opportunity to demonstrate whose way of life is the better.” The US, Kennedy argued, needed to focus on providing India the help it needed to win that struggle — even if India wasn’t asking for that help or, indeed, seeking to “win” any geopolitical contest with China.

Today, the relationships between the US, India and China have matured, with all three wrestling with complex, and often contradictory, policies that are simultaneously cooperative and confrontational. Notwithstanding this, the US continues to err on the side of helping India achieve a geopolitical “win” over China. One need only consider the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” conceived in 2007, but dormant until 2017, when it was resurrected under US leadership to bring together the US, Japan, Australia and India in an effort to create a regional counterweight to China’s growing influence.

There was a time when cooler heads cautioned against such an assertive US-led posture on a regional response to an expansive, and expanding, Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific region. This line of thinking held that strong Indian relationships with Tokyo and Canberra should be allowed to naturally progress, independent of US regional ambitions.

These same “cool heads” argued that the US needed to be realistic in its expectations on relations between India and China, avoiding the pitfalls of Cold War-era “zero-sum game” calculations. The US should appreciate that India needed to implement a foreign policy that best met Indian needs. Moreover, they argued, a US-Indian relationship that was solely focused on China would not age well, given the transitory realities of a changing global geopolitical dynamic.

The Asian Century

The key to deciphering Jaishanker’s strategic intent in his Thailand comments lay in his use of the term “Asian Century.” This echoed the words of former Chinese reformist leader Deng Xiaoping, who, in a meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1988, declared that “in recent years people have been saying that the next century will be the century of Asia and the Pacific, as if that were sure to be the case. I disagree with this view.” Deng went on to explain that unless China and India focus their respective and collective energies on developing their economies, there could, in fact, be no “Asian Century.”

Riaz Haq said...

Riaz Haq
@haqsmusings
People Of #Flood-Hit #Pakistan Need #America's Help. #US Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee has introduced legislation to provide more help to the country that has been devastated by recent #floods. #PakistanFloods #Sindh

https://twitter.com/haqsmusings/status/1571173078625030148?s=20&t=sptq7d0z3ATWm_L0h6R1uA

--------------------
Pakistan, she said, has been a friend and has helped the US in the evacuation of Afghan refugees; helped in the war on terror, where they lost the Pakistani military in the war on terror.

“And, of course, the huge and very engaging Pakistani diaspora, Pakistani Americans who are both respected and, of course, energised to be collaborative with their government here in the United States to try to save the lives of babies and children, women and men, people who are sick, who need kidney transplants, who can't get their medicine, it is imperative that we rise up to this occasion,” she said.

-------

Asserting that the people of Pakistan need America’s help, a US lawmaker has introduced legislation to provide more help to the country that has been devastated by recent floods.

The cash-strapped nation has been struggling with the worst floods in the past 30 years, leaving more than 1,400 dead and 33 million people affected since early June.


A third of the country is submerged in water and one in every seven persons is badly affected by the floods that have led to an estimated USD 12 billion in losses that have left about 78,000 square kilometers (21 million acres) of crops under water.

“The people of Pakistan need our help. The Pakistani Americans have risen to their call. So many in my Congressional district are providing and offering to help send medical care if you will,” Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, co-chair of the Pakistani Congressional Caucus said in her remarks in the House of Representatives.

Speaking on the floor of the House, Jackson-Lee said that it is very important for the US Congress to go on record in recognizing the devastation that the people are facing every single day.

“Would you imagine, even in the trials and tribulations that we have in the United States, that you have populations of people who are isolated by dirty water and that there are people who are living in the outlying areas with no shelter whatsoever,” she said.

“The people are hungry, the lack of food is rising. The pregnant women are fearful for the unbelievable challenges they have in giving birth,” she said.

“Madam Speaker, I am calling upon Congress, as I introduce this legislation dealing with the devastation of the floods in Pakistan, to join me in supporting the legislation and, as well, recognising the dire conditions that our friends in Pakistan are having,” Jackson-Lee said.


Jackson-Lee has just returned from Pakistan after a 10 days visit with the Congressional Pakistan Caucus. “I could see water as far as the eye could see. The devastation is overwhelming: 33 million people displaced, more than 600,000 homeless, but more than that, hungry,” she said.

She thanks the Biden administration for its initial support of the UN fund of USD 30 million and the additional funding of USD 20 million.

“After our briefing in Islamabad and working with the administration, the United States military joined in delivering 300,000 tents,” she said.

“To my colleagues, more is needed. I will be introducing legislation that reflects the delegation's work and, as well, their efforts; and that is, we need additional funding for these devastating conditions,” said the Democratic Congresswoman from Texas.

Riaz Haq said...

‘Sale’ of F-16 spares is US way to keep Pakistan where it wants to be—between China and West
Even though all the three services of Pakistan’s armed forces are largely composed of Chinese-manufactured equipment, Rawalpindi's heart remains tilted towards the West.


by Ayesha Siddiqa

https://theprint.in/opinion/sale-of-f-16-spares-is-us-way-to-keep-pakistan-where-it-wants-to-be-between-china-and-west/1130194/

The Joe Biden administration’s announcement to offer defence equipment worth $450 million to Pakistan for its F-16 fighter jet fleet is a noticeable development. But it definitely doesn’t indicate that America’s South Asian policy is shifting gears or moving away from where it had started to pivot around 2012. The US’ Indo-Pacific strategy remains focussed on India. Donald Lu, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, said that America isn’t giving any aid to Pakistan; rather, it’s just the sale of spare parts which won’t add anything to Pakistan’s capabilities.

Theoretically, this is the correct position because $450 million is not a huge amount. It is barely enough to buy the necessary nuts and bolts to keep the three aircraft squadrons in Pakistan Air Force (PAF) operational. It also doesn’t help Pakistan’s flood-battered economy to cough out $450 million. The main aim of PAF here seems to be to keep its F-16s functional.

The US administration’s approval for the sale of spares is meant for about 19 block-52 aircraft. Reportedly, the PAF has about a squadron strength of these aircraft. The PAF is also keen to replace its old French Mirage aircraft but F-16 is certainly not an option as Islamabad wouldn’t have the cash to pay for Western aircraft. The evolving geo-political circumstances also don’t seem to suggest that floodgates to American military and economic aid would open like in the past. Pakistan received the bulk of F-16s in its inventory during the 1980s to fight the war against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. The F-16s became a symbol of strong Pakistan-US relations and gave wings to the country’s security, prompting the PAF to want to acquire about 120 aircraft. The plan was eventually shelved as Pakistan was hit by the US arms embargo after October 1990. The American war against the Taliban that followed resulted in adding some more F-16s to the PAF but the story essentially stops here.

The reality is that over the past decade, the PAF has shifted towards the Chinese JF-17 Thunder aircraft, which it had used during the post-Balakot operation in 2019. The JF-17 Thunder, jointly developed and produced by Islamabad and Beijing, is an aircraft that has evolved with major inputs from the PAF. Initially meant to add numbers to the air force, the aircraft was developed over the years to also fill the quality gap that Pakistan had been unable to do due to lack of access to fourth generation Western aircraft. It was early this year that plans were reportedly afoot regarding PAF procuring 50 JF-17 block III aircraft. The internet is already flooded with photographs of the latest JF-17s flying with the air force.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan and China trumpeted their "all weather" friendship after their leaders met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit on Friday, but analysts warn that Islamabad's scramble to extricate itself from an economic crisis could stoke tensions.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Pakistan-and-China-hail-brotherhood-but-IMF-terms-spell-friction

Both sides' readouts of the summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif were filled with flowery language. Sharif's office said he emphasized that the nations' "iron brotherhood had withstood the test of time" and reaffirmed "his personal resolve to take their bilateral relations to greater heights."

China's Foreign Ministry said Xi stressed that "the two countries have all along stood with each other through thick and thin. No matter how the international situation evolves, China and Pakistan are always each other's trustworthy strategic partners."

But hinting at concerns over recent attacks on Chinese interests in Pakistan and worries over payments to Chinese companies, Beijing's readout added: "China hopes that Pakistan will provide solid protection for the security of Chinese citizens and institutions in Pakistan as well as the lawful rights and interests of Chinese businesses."

Looming over the meeting were expectations that Pakistan will seek concessions on dues owed to Chinese power producers operating in the country under the $50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) -- part of Xi's Belt and Road Initiative.

Cash-strapped Islamabad needs to do this to satisfy the International Monetary Fund and unlock more funding, as it rushes to reduce the risk of a debt default.

The government assured the IMF in July that it would strive to reduce capacity payments to Chinese independent power producers (IPPs) either by renegotiating purchase agreements or rescheduling bank loans. Capacity payments are fixed payments made to power plants for generating a minimum amount of electricity to ensure that demand is met. These companies produce costly electricity using imported fuel, and are said to be on the brink of default.

"The IMF anticipated that pressure would come from the Chinese IPPs that the entire loan installment be used to pay them," Nadeem Hussain, a Boston-based author and economic policy analyst, told Nikkei Asia. "Hence, the IMF extended the current program on the condition that it would not go to the Chinese IPPs."

The Washington-based lender released a long-pending tranche of $1.17 billion two weeks ago after Pakistan undertook a series of politically unpopular economic measures toward fiscal discipline. The bailout program, which began in 2019 but stalled, was also extended until next June, with additional funding set to bring the total value to about $6.5 billion, the IMF said in a statement.

But Pakistan owes $1.1 billion to Chinese IPPs for power purchases, contributing to the massive 2.6 trillion-rupee ($11 billion) debt stock in the country's power sector. The IMF has long maintained that Chinese loans threaten Pakistan's debt sustainability.

Xi, in the Chinese Foreign Minister readout of his meeting with Sharif, "stressed that the two sides must continue to firmly support each other, foster stronger synergy between their development strategies, and harness ... the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to ensure smooth construction and operation of major projects."

Observers say Pakistan's handling of the electricity issue is likely to irk China, noting that Sharif's government committed to the IMF to reopen power contracts without taking the Chinese companies into confidence. Pakistan has also reneged on a promise to set up an escrow account to ensure smooth payments to Chinese IPPs.

Riaz Haq said...

Pakistan and China trumpeted their "all weather" friendship after their leaders met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit on Friday, but analysts warn that Islamabad's scramble to extricate itself from an economic crisis could stoke tensions.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Pakistan-and-China-hail-brotherhood-but-IMF-terms-spell-friction

"The Chinese [companies] have been absolutely upset for a very long time," said Haroon Sharif, a former minister of state who spearheaded industrial cooperation with China under the previous government of Prime Minister Imran Khan. "The Chinese stance is that it's a commercial agreement. No IPP is obliged to listen to the [Pakistani] government because the agreements were drawn under the law," he said, referring to a system that predated the Khan government and paved the way for Chinese players to invest in the country's power sector, setting the terms.

Resentment has been building for some time. CPEC projects were stalled for months after Khan took power in 2018, mainly due to graft allegations regarding the previous government's dealings. There were also allegations that the arrangements unfairly benefited Beijing.

"The IPP framework is deeply flawed," Haroon Sharif said. "The [Chinese] IPPs are averse to taking risks because the state guarantees a return on investment in dollar terms whether they are selling [electricity] or not."

As a confidence-building measure, Islamabad did announce the release of 50 billion rupees to the companies by next week and assured the Chinese suppliers that all outstanding dues will be cleared by June next year. The announcement came ahead of Prime Minister Sharif's meeting with Xi at the SCO and a planned visit to China in November, when he might raise concerns about the power deals.

The release of the funds may serve only as a Band-Aid.

The IMF is demanding that Pakistan rationalize payments to the Chinese IPPs in line with earlier concessions extracted from local private power producers, Haroon Sharif explained. Former Prime Minister Khan persuaded local IPPs to accept lower interest rates on outstanding bills before releasing staggered reimbursements in the form of debt instruments, like government bonds.

Chinese power producers, however, have fiercely opposed similar propositions in the past. In March, Chinese IPPs closed down operations due to unpaid dues, insisting they did not have money to import fuel. The government disbursed another installment of 50 billion rupees to get them to resume operations.

The IMF now wants Pakistan to negotiate an increase in the duration of bank loans from 10 years to 20 years, or to reduce the markup on arrears owed to Chinese IPPs from 4.5% to 2%, the ex-minister said.

He added that there is a lesson in this for China. "Chinese companies should deeply study macroeconomic fundamentals [before making any investments], and not blindly follow state guarantees,'' Sharif argued. At the same time, he said, this will have a far-reaching impact on Pakistan's future investment climate.

Riaz Haq said...

Dr Claude Rakisits
@ClaudeRakisits
Now that the war in #Ukraine is starting to seriously turn against #Russia, ⁦
@PMOIndia
⁩ now sees the benefits in being publicly critical of #Putin. It’s unfortunate that #India hadn’t taken a more principled position from the start.

https://twitter.com/ClaudeRakisits/status/1571015863712550912?s=20&t=Jl49VRi9l2Q4vIa0LC4n7Q

Riaz Haq said...

China-led SCO pushes multipolar world as Xi warns of 'color' revolts
Beijing, Moscow challenge Western influence in joint statement

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/China-led-SCO-pushes-multipolar-world-as-Xi-warns-of-color-revolts


Leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization called for a stronger multilateral world order led by several powers and regions in a joint statement Friday, as China and Russia push to expand the framework to counter America's global unipolar influence.

The declaration, issued after a two-day summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, urged closer cooperation on a wide range of fields from politics and economy to national security and culture.

The eight member states "reaffirm their commitment to a more representative, democratic, just and multipolar world order based on the universally recognized principles of international law," the statement says.

Xi on Friday also urged cooperation to prevent foreign powers from meddling in internal affairs and instigating "color revolutions," referring to the series of anti-regime protests largely in the former Soviet Union. China considers Taiwan part of its territory and thus a domestic matter.

China and Russia consider the world to be at a crossroads with the rise of Asia and the war in Ukraine. They see the SCO, which Iran is now set to formally join next year, as a tool to increase their international clout.

Still, it is unclear how closely members can work together given the organization's limitations.

Established in 2001, the SCO functions as a loose grouping that fosters stability and trust between former Soviet states and promotes multilateral cooperation. In addition to China and Russia, its official members are Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, India and Pakistan.

Fourteen leaders attended this week's summit, including from observer states Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia, and dialogue partners Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cambodia, Nepal, Turkey and Sri Lanka.

The grouping is seeking out new members to bolster its clout. Iran this week signed a memorandum toward attending the 2023 summit in India as its ninth full-fledged member. Belarus, a Russian ally, has begun the membership process, while Turkey has expressed interest as well.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar newly signed on as dialogue partners with an eye on eventually joining the framework. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Myanmar, Bahrain and the Maldives will start the process as well.

But unlike NATO, which is a political and military alliance, the SCO is not a united bloc. Its agreements generally are not legally binding, and regional issues are usually settled bilaterally between individual members.

Some members are at odds with each other, like China and India over their shared border. While Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin affirmed their opposition to U.S. "provocations" in a Thursday summit, they signaled a rift in their position on the war in Ukraine.

China and Russia have also used other channels like BRICS -- their grouping with Brazil, India and South Africa -- to advocate for an alternative to the Western-led international order. They have promoted an expanded "BRICS Plus" framework, which includes other emerging and developing economies.

Meanwhile, the U.S., Japan and Europe are deepening their cooperation with countries that share similar values, like the rule of law. They have launched the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India and Australia and the AUKUS grouping with Australia in recent years as a deterrent against China and Russia in the Asia-Pacific.

Riaz Haq said...

China-India relations: Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi continue to keep each other at arm’s length | South China Morning Post

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3192927/china-india-relations-xi-jinping-and-narendra-modi-continue

Chinese President Xi Jinping met at least 12 state leaders for one-on-one talks during a three-day diplomatic blitz last week, his first trip outside China since the early days of the pandemic.

But they did not include Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The pair posed for group photos at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit held in the Uzbek city of Samarkand and attended multilateral meetings, but there was no publicly reported two-way meeting. The deadly clash in the Galwan Valley two years ago continues to weigh on relations and Beijing is concerned by Delhi’s growing closeness to the US

Riaz Haq said...

Why India-US ties are frosty & what Jaishankar can do to reduce Biden disinterest

https://youtu.be/8RCTNZ_HUzU

Why Jaishankar’s US visit more than formality and aims to fix Biden’s disinterest in India
The unhappiness in Washington DC is taking its toll—and manifesting in increasing disinterest, for example, in signing a free trade agreement with India.

https://theprint.in/opinion/global-print/why-jaishankars-us-visit-more-than-formality-and-aims-to-fix-bidens-disinterest-in-india/1135468/

Days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi was seen and heard publicly chastising Russian President Vladimir Putin for choosing war over peace in Ukraine on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Samarkand last week, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is travelling to the US where he is scheduled to meet his American counterpart Antony Blinken and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. He will also participate in meetings of the Quad, BRICS and the UN.

The visit comes at an important time in the India-US relationship, which has been recently characterised by greater anxiety than comfort—which is odd, considering that the world’s oldest and largest democracies have publicly demonstrated both affection and confidence in each other at least since the 2008 Indo-US nuclear deal.

A frosty relationship
But some things seem to have fallen apart recently under US President Joe Biden’s watch. No big ideas seem to be consuming both nations. A free trade agreement, on the anvil at least for the last five years, seems to have been put into cold storage for now. The lack of a US ambassador at Roosevelt House in Delhi since the previous incumbent Kenneth Juster left a couple of years ago, certainly hasn’t helped matters.

In its stead, a growing suspicion rules. The Modi government is increasingly of the view that the Biden administration is being distracted from its main job, which is to expand and deepen the US’ relationship with India, by the exclusive pursuit of religious freedoms and human rights by do-gooders in Washington DC.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration will not formally criticise India but leave it to its evangelical officials to censure New Delhi for curbing freedoms, fundamental rights and labour laws and short-changing India’s unique destiny as a democracy.

The difference between the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations is that Obama at least recognised that the fundamentally vibrant nature of India’s democracy could not be put down. Biden, on the other hand, seems unable to understand the difference.

Moreover, Biden’s officials have been consumed with India’s reliance on Russian energy in recent months and are increasingly of the view that New Delhi must choose between supporting US sanctions on Russia. Equally stubbornly, Indian officials point out that cheap, discounted Russian oil since the war with Ukraine six months ago has amounted to a significant saving for the Indian exchequer, as much as Rs 35,000 crore.

It is this discrepancy in worldview that is hurting this relationship at the present moment. And that is why Jaishankar has gone to the US, in the hope that his honest conversations with Blinken, Austin and some Congressmen and women will heal the divide.

Riaz Haq said...

Why India-US ties are frosty & what Jaishankar can do to reduce Biden disinterest

https://youtu.be/8RCTNZ_HUzU

Why Jaishankar’s US visit more than formality and aims to fix Biden’s disinterest in India
The unhappiness in Washington DC is taking its toll—and manifesting in increasing disinterest, for example, in signing a free trade agreement with India.

https://theprint.in/opinion/global-print/why-jaishankars-us-visit-more-than-formality-and-aims-to-fix-bidens-disinterest-in-india/1135468/

Bridging the divide
There are several themes that Jaishankar can spin. First, Russia. The fact that PM Modi spoke clearly with Putin and told him that it was unfortunate he was choosing war over peace with Ukraine, or the fact that his comments in Hindi were put out on all social media, is a signal that India is not completely on Putin’s side of the fence.

Certainly, this is a message to the US. That it should not believe that just because India is buying large amounts of discounted oil from Russia—naturally, in order to shore up its economy—it supports Putin’s war. It does not and Modi has made that amply clear.

Moreover, the fact that the famed Russian army has still not been able to subdue Ukraine even after six long months and has even lost a Russian-majority town like Kharkiv demonstrates to India that it must reduce its dependency on Russian defence equipment.

Fact is, India is dreadfully concerned that the war will go on and on—as Putin has promised—and that the West will be forced to defend Ukraine, no matter the cost. It is clear that India has no option but to keep buying the discounted oil from Russia—even while it holds its nose on the rest of Russia’s policies.

Second, China. Jaishankar will hope the US understands the determination with which India has withstood Chinese pressure these last couple of years with PLA troops bearing down on the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh.

Moreover, at last week’s SCO summit, Modi made sure that there was no photo-op with China’s Xi Jinping, except for the necessary group photo. That is another signal to the US—that India will do its bit in standing up to an assertive China and play its role, albeit in the shadows, in containing its fellow Asian power.

As to the Democratic Party’s concerns about curbs on individual freedoms in India, it is more than unlikely that Blinken or US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman will directly engage Jaishankar on that front. If they do, it would be a remarkable interference in India’s internal affairs and the US knows that it could lead to a further frostiness in the relationship.

But the unhappiness in Washington DC is taking its toll—and manifesting in increasing disinterest, for example, in signing a free trade agreement with India.

Certainly, Jaishankar has his work cut out over the next ten days in the US.

The author is a consulting editor. She tweets @jomalhotra. Views are personal.

Riaz Haq said...

The United States is in "deep" talks with India over its reliance on Russian arms and energy, a US State Department official said Tuesday, in a development that could further isolate Moscow on the international stage.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/india/india-us-talks-shifting-russia-reliance-intl-hnk/index.html

Russia "is no longer a reliable weapons supplier" and Indian representatives are "coming to understand that there could be real benefits for them (in finding other markets)," the official told reporters in New York.
"India is heavily, heavily dependent on Russia, and that's something that they did to themselves over some 40 years: first their military and then their energy dependence," the official said. "So we have been in deep conversation with India about the fact that we want to help them have options to diversify here."
CNN has contacted India's Ministry of External Affairs, but did not receive a response.

The State Department official's comments came hours before Russian President Vladimir Putin announced an escalation of Moscow's offensive in Ukraine, calling for the immediate "partial mobilization" of Russian citizens.
"In order to protect our homeland, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, to ensure the security of our people and people in the liberated territories, I consider it necessary to support the proposal of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff to conduct partial mobilization in the Russian Federation," Putin said in a highly anticipated speech to the nation Wednesday.
Efforts to begin partial mobilization will begin on Wednesday and the decree was already signed, Putin said. The mobilization would mean citizens who are in the reserve and those with military experience would be subject to conscription, he added.
Putin framed the fighting as part of a larger struggle for Russian survival against a West whose goal is it is to "weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our country."
It is unclear what impact Putin's comments will have on India's position on the war.
Since the start of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, India has sought to carve a middle path between Moscow and its Western critics, largely steering clear of condemning a country that remains its biggest arms supplier and with which it has ties dating back to the Cold War.
It has so far largely resisted Western pressure to cut its economic ties with the Kremlin, instead increasing its purchases of Russian oil, coal and fertilizer, and has repeatedly abstained from a United Nations vote on suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council, instead calling for "dialogue and diplomacy."
However, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared to indicate a potential change in tone last week, telling Russian President Vladimir Putin that now is not the time for war.
The comments from Modi came during a face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Uzbekistan.
"I know that today's era is not of war and we have talked to you many times over the phone on the subject that democracy and diplomacy and dialogue are all these things that touch the world," Modi told Putin.
While India's relationship with Russia goes back decades, New Delhi's ties with the West have been growing ever closer since Modi's election in 2014. Annual India-US trade is more than $110 billion, compared to about $8 billion for India's trade with Russia. In recent years, India has also become a major customer for US military equipment.

Riaz Haq said...

Senators seek secondary sanctions on Russian oil purchases that could irk India, China


https://worldoil.com/news/2022/9/20/u-s-senators-seek-secondary-sanctions-on-russian-oil-purchases/

(Bloomberg) — A bipartisan pair of senators is pressing the Biden administration to use secondary sanctions to enforce a cap on the price of Russian oil.

The push comes as the US and Group of Seven nations seek to limit Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ability to fund his war in Ukraine.

Senators Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey are working on legislation that would impose secondary sanctions on foreign firms that facilitate the trade of Russian oil and on countries that increase their purchases of the commodity.

The pair worked together before and co-sponsored the Senate version of the Hong Kong Autonomy Act that imposed sanctions on Chinese officials involved in the crackdown on dissent in the territory and was signed into law by Donald Trump.

“We have yet to effectively cut off funding to Putin’s war machine by diminishing Russia’s revenues from energy sales,” Van Hollen and Toomey, who are both members of the Banking Committee, said in a statement. “In order to successfully enforce the price cap, it’s clear the administration requires new authority from Congress.”

The legislation sets up a clash with the Biden administration, which has previously rejected secondary sanctions as a way to enforce the oil price cap. Biden’s team argues that the economic incentives of a cap are sufficient to induce cooperation and secondary sanctions would create tensions with nations such as India, which continue to buy Russian oil.

Buyer Incentives

“I don’t think you need secondary sanctions for this to work,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in a Sept/ 6 interview with Bloomberg reporters in New York. “The incentives of buyers are aligned with the incentives of the countries that are putting in place the price cap.”

A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment. A person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations, said Treasury had been briefed on the framework.

But Congress has repeatedly steered the administration toward harder-line policies on Russia since its Feb. 24 invasion. The most prominent example was when the administration, under pressure from lawmakers, reversed its opposition to cutting off some Russian banks from the SWIFT financial messaging system.

Bilateral Strains

If passed, the legislation could provoke a major fight with countries such as India and China, which have ramped up their purchases of Russian oil and have reacted coolly to the idea of a price cap. The US has been careful in its interactions with India on the price cap, pitching it as a way to negotiate lower prices from Russia but steering clear of threatening penalties for failing to join the scheme.

Under the two senators’ proposal, the US and its allies would be required to impose a cap on the price of Russian seaborne oil by March 2023. The cap would then be reduced by one-third every year until it reaches the break-even price within three years, depriving Putin of any revenue above the price of production. The president can waive the price reduction if the administration determines it would cause the global price of oil to spike.

The cap would be enforced by secondary sanctions on any firms involved in the sale or transportation of Russian oil, including banks, insurance and re-insurance companies and brokerages.

The legislation, which has not yet been introduced, would also penalize countries found to be importing Russian oil, oil products, gas and coal above their pre-war levels.

Van Hollen and Toomey said secondary sanctions would give the administration the tools it needs to “hold accountable the financial institutions supporting those countries involved in rampant war profiteering from Russian exports.”

Riaz Haq said...

Sidhant Sibal
@sidhant
US's F-16 package to Pakistan "predicated on US interest associated with our defence partnership with Pak, wch is focused on counter terror or nuclear security as Sec. Austin made it clear to Min. Singh, it doesnt includes any upgrades", says US Asst Sec of Defense Dr. Ely Ratner

https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1572991990454591488?s=20&t=z8IxFm3TqHNVXaW9wHT6wg


-----------

US has limited security partnership with Pakistan, says Pentagon official
Written By: Sidhant Sibal WION

https://www.wionews.com/world/us-has-limited-security-partnership-with-pakistan-says-pentagon-official-518852

The Pentagon has said that it has a "limited security partnership" with Pakistan, key comments in the backdrop of the recent Washington announcement of a $450 million package for Islamabad to sustain its F16 fleet. The Biden government's decision, which was announced earlier this month reverses the decision of the previous Trump govt and helps Pakistan sustain its F16 programme.

Speaking to a selected group of reporters, US Asst Sec of Defense Dr Ely S Ratner explained that the US has been engaging with its Indian counterparts on the issue "both in advance of the announcement.." and "during the " mini 2+2 that happened earlier this month in Delhi.

Dr Ely Ratner, along with Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State (South and Central Asian Affairs) were in Delhi for the India-U.S.A 2+2 Inter-sessional Dialogue with Indian diplomat Vani Rao. Rao is the Additional Secretary (Americas) in the Ministry of External Affairs.

Ratner said, "It is important to be transparent as we could with Indian counterparts both in advance and during the decision and good opportunity for health exchange on both the US rationale for its limited security partnership with Pakistan and good opportunity to hear India's concern about that".

In the aftermath of the US announcement on F16, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and Indian Defence minister Rajnath Singh spoke to each other in which the latter raised New Delhi's concerns. The package doesn't include any upgrades.

In response to the question, the Pentagon official also clarified that the package was not "designed as a message to India, as it relates to its relation to Russia."

He pointed out that the "decision inside US govt around F16 issue was made predicated on US interest associated with our defence partnership with Pakistan which is primarily focused on counter-terrorism and nuclear security". US comments come even as Pakistani PM Shehbaz Sharif is in New York.

India and US defence ties have increased in the past few years significantly. In 2016, the defence relationship was designated as a Major Defence Partnership (MDP). Several defence agreements have been signed in recent years. These include, Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Association (August 2016); Memorandum of Intent between the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the Indian Defense Innovation Organization – Innovation for Defense Excellence (2018); Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (September 2018); Industrial Security Agreement (December 2019); Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (October 2020).

Riaz Haq said...

Was China a factor in US$450 million US-Pakistan F-16 deal, or is it all about airspace access?

by Tom Hussain

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3193522/was-china-factor-us450-million-us-pakistan-f-16-deal-or-it-all

A deal struck to maintain and upgrade Pakistan’s warplanes has prompted speculation the US military may have secured airspace access in return
Both sides share a common enemy in Afghanistan-based terror groups. But some analysts see China as part of the reason for the F-16 deal as well


For the first time since the United States cancelled military aid to Pakistan in 2018, Washington this month approved a US$450 million package to maintain and upgrade the South Asian nation’s fleet of F-16 fighter jets, hinting at a thaw in bilateral ties that had turned decidedly frosty of late.
The deal announced on September 9 followed a flurry of diplomatic activity, prompting speculation that in return for agreeing to keep Pakistan’s warplanes airborne for the next five years, the US military covertly secured access to the country’s airspace to carry out counterterrorism operations.
Though Islamabad has repeatedly denied any such conspiracy, the assassination in late July of al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul is widely believed to have been carried out by a US drone that traversed Pakistani airspace en route to its target.

Was China a factor in US$450 million US-Pakistan F-16 deal, or is it all about airspace access?
A deal struck to maintain and upgrade Pakistan’s warplanes has prompted speculation the US military may have secured airspace access in return
Both sides share a common enemy in Afghanistan-based terror groups. But some analysts see China as part of the reason for the F-16 deal as well
Pakistan

Riaz Haq said...

"It is India’s credentials as the world’s largest democracy that Mr. Modi rides on the global stage. But at home, diplomats, analysts and activists say, Mr. Modi’s government is.. stifling dissent, sidelining civilian institutions and making minorities second-class citizens."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/world/asia/india-democracy.html

The New India: Expanding Influence Abroad, Straining Democracy at Home
As India rises, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has faced little pushback as he weaponizes institutions to consolidate power and entrench his Hindu nationalist vision.

On the margins of a summit meant as a show of force for a Russian leader seeking a turnaround on the battlefield, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India leaned in with a different message.

“Democracy, diplomacy and dialogue” — not war — is the answer, he told Vladimir V. Putin as the cameras rolled this month, before declaring that the two would speak more about how to bring peace in Ukraine.

That assured interaction in Uzbekistan was the latest display of India’s rise under Mr. Modi. An ambitious and assertive power, India has become increasingly indispensable in the search for answers to some of the world’s most pressing challenges, from diplomacy to climate change to technology and trade to efforts at diversifying supply chains to counter China.

It is India’s credentials as the world’s largest democracy that Mr. Modi rides on the global stage. But at home, diplomats, analysts and activists say, Mr. Modi’s government is undertaking a project to remake India’s democracy unlike any in its 75 years of independence — stifling dissent, sidelining civilian institutions and making minorities second-class citizens.

While past Indian leaders exploited religious divisions and weaponized institutions to stay in power, Mr. Modi’s focus has been more fundamental: a systematic consolidation of power, achieved not through dramatic power grabs but through more subtle and lasting means, aimed at imprinting a majoritarian Hindu ideology on India’s constitutionally secular democracy.

Mr. Modi has bent to his will the courts, the news media, the legislature and civil society — “referee” institutions that guarded India’s democracy in a region of military coups and entrenched dictatorships. As he has done so, the country’s indispensability on major global issues, coupled with challenges to democracy in both the United States and Europe, has ensured little pushback from Western allies.

The question now for both India and the world is whether the country can remain an engine for growth and a viable partner even as its heavy-handed marginalization of minorities, particularly its 200 million Muslims, stokes cycles of extremism and perpetual volatility at home.

Riaz Haq said...


"You're Not Fooling Anybody...": S Jaishankar On US' F-16 Deal With Pak
"It's a relationship that has neither ended up serving Pakistan well nor serving the American interests," S Jaishankar said at an event in Washington


https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/s-jaishankar-f-16-not-fooling-anybody-s-jaishankar-on-us-fighter-plane-deal-with-pak-3377931

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has raised questions over the "merits" of the US-Pakistan relationship and said that Washington's ties with Islamabad have not served the "American interest".
"It's a relationship that has neither ended up serving Pakistan well nor serving the American interests," Mr Jaishankar said at an event organised by the Indian American community in Washington on Sunday.

The remarks were made when the Indian minister was questioned by the audience on US action on F-16 fighter jets with Pakistan. Just weeks ago, for the first time since 2018, the US State Department approved a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to the Government of Pakistan for the sustainability of the Pakistan Air Force F-16 fleet and equipment at the cost of USD 450 million.


Defence Minister Rajnath Singh promptly conveyed to US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin India's concerns over Washington's decision to provide a sustenance package for Pakistan's F-16 fleet.

"It's really for the United States today to reflect on the merits of this relationship and what they get by it," Mr Jaishankar asserted.

"For someone to say I am doing this because it is all counter-terrorism content and so when you are talking of an aircraft like a capability of an F-16 where everybody knows, you know where they are deployed and their use. You are not fooling anybody by saying these things," Mr Jaishankar noted.

"If I were to speak to an American policy-maker, I would really make the case (that) look what you are doing," he asserted.

Mr Jaishankar on Saturday concluded the high-level United Nations General Assembly debate in New York and is scheduled to spend the next three days in Washington.

The minister is scheduled to meet with his American counterpart, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and other top officials of the Biden administration.

Riaz Haq said...


Suhasini Haidar
@suhasinih
India, Pakistan both partners of U.S. with different points of emphasis: Biden administration
"We look to both as partners, because we do have in many cases shared values...shared interests." Said State dept spokesperson

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/india-pakistan-both-partners-of-us-with-different-points-of-emphasis-biden-administration/article65940554.ece

https://twitter.com/suhasinih/status/1574601690581389313?s=20&t=rC5naFys3GZIi6ol7sNwVQ

-----------

India and Pakistan are both partners of the U.S. with different points of emphasis, the Biden administration said on September 26, a day after visiting External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar questioned the rationale behind the latest American F-16 security assistance to Islamabad.

Referring to the argument made by the U.S. that F-16 sustenance package is to fight terrorism, Mr. Jaishankar had said everybody knows where and against whom F-16 fighter jets are used. "You're not fooling anybody by saying these things," he said in response to a question during an interaction with Indian-Americans.

"We don't view our relationship with Pakistan, and on the other hand, we don't view our relationship with India as in relation to one another. These are both partners of ours with different points of emphasis in each," State Department Spokesperson Ned Price told reporters at his daily news conference.

"We look to both as partners, because we do have in many cases shared values. We do have in many cases shared interests. And the relationship we have with India stands on its own. The relationship we have with Pakistan stands on its own," he said.



Early this month, the Biden administration approved a $450 million F-16 fighter jet fleet sustainment programme to Pakistan, reversing the decision of the previous Trump administration to suspend military aid to Islamabad for providing safe havens for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.

"We also want to do everything we can to see to it that these neighbours have relations with one another that are as constructive as can be possible. So that's another point of emphasis," Mr. Price said in response to a question.

Responding to another question, Mr. Price said it is "not in Pakistan's interest to see instability and violence in Afghanistan".

"The support for the people of Afghanistan is something we discuss regularly with our Pakistani partners; our efforts to improve the lives and livelihoods and humanitarian conditions of the Afghan people, and to see to it that the Taliban live up to the commitments that they have made," he added.

Pakistan is implicated in many of these same commitments: the counterterrorism commitments, commitments to safe passage, commitments to the citizens of Afghanistan, Mr. Price said. "The unwillingness or the inability on the part of the Taliban to live up to these commitments would have significant implications for Pakistan as well".

"So, for that reason, we do share a number of interests with Pakistan regarding its neighbour," Mr. Price said.



The United States, he noted, has been intently focused on the devastation that has resulted in the loss of life resulting from the torrential floods that have devastated large areas of Pakistan.

"We have provided tens of millions of dollars in relief for these floods. The Secretary today will have additional details on further US assistance for the Pakistani people, in light of this humanitarian emergency that Pakistanis are facing," he added.

Riaz Haq said...


Hassan Akbar
@hass_akbr
Shocking coming from a country that has been on the receiving end of US generosity what with the CAATSA waiver. Can’t believe India thinks it can dictate US foreign policy while selling Washington baloony about is own independence when it comes to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/hass_akbr/status/1574369893797220353?s=20&t=rC5naFys3GZIi6ol7sNwVQ


"You're Not Fooling Anybody...": S Jaishankar On US' F-16 Deal With Pak
"It's a relationship that has neither ended up serving Pakistan well nor serving the American interests," S Jaishankar said at an event in Washington


https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/youre-not-fooling-anybody-jaishankar-responds-to-us-f-16-package-for-pakistan-101664183691205.html

Riaz Haq said...

With eye on Beijing, India and US make a show of unity amid fissures

On Monday, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar had sharp words for US President Joe Biden’s approval earlier this month of a US$450 million package to maintain and upgrade the F-16 fighter jet fleet of Pakistan, India’s rival. The US argues that the F-16 fleet is important to counter terrorism.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3194048/eye-beijing-india-and-us-make-show-unity-amid-fissures

A day after fissures reappeared in US-India ties, top diplomats from both countries struck a cordial tone on Tuesday in a show of unity with an eye on China – a common challenge and competitor in the Indo-Pacific.
On Monday, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar had sharp words for US President Joe Biden’s approval earlier this month of a US$450 million package to maintain and upgrade the F-16 fighter jet fleet of Pakistan, India’s rival. The US argues that the F-16 fleet is important to counter terrorism.

India – a key partner in the US security strategy for the Indo-Pacific region to counter China’s growing muscle – opposed the move, contending that Pakistan harbours and exports terrorists. On Monday, Jaishankar said the US was “not fooling anyone” when it said the fighters would be used for counterterrorism “because we all know where they are deployed”.

Expressing a “keen interest to move forward on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework

Expressing a “keen interest to move forward on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework”, a loose grouping of 13 countries from South and Southeast Asian countries led by the US to counter China’s dominance in international trade, Jaishankar said that “India and the US share a strong interest in encouraging more resilient and reliable supply chains”.
Discussing security issues, Jaishankar praised the US for adopting a more “international” approach and becoming “more open to engaging with countries like India” in initiatives such as the Quad Security Dialogue – a four-nation bloc including the US, India, Japan and Australia – that hope to counter China as its influence grows in the Indo-Pacific.
The Quad, he said, “has grown remarkably in the last two years”, adding that there was a “lot of promise in working with the US to shape the direction of the world”.

For his part, Blinken signalled support for “increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the United Nations Security Council, a long-standing goal of India”. China opposes India’s bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council; the two nations maintain strained ties over a decades-long border dispute in the Himalayas.

While Jaishankar avoided the topic of Pakistan, Blinken endured questions from the Indian press over the deal’s effectiveness in tackling terrorism. He said that it was the US’ “responsibility and obligation” to provide sustenance support, reasserting that Pakistan’s bolstered capability in counterterrorism benefited both India and the US.
Last week, China, one of the five permanent Security Council members, blocked a joint attempt by the US and India to sanction Sajjid Mir, a Pakistan-based commander of the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba; India claims Mir played a role in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 that killed more than 300 people.
Akriti Vasudeva of the Stimson Centre in Washington noted that with “the growing US-India strategic partnership, the two countries’ alignment on the Chinese threat and the need for a rules-based order, and their broad-based cooperation means that they have far greater convergences than divergences and will not let any misgivings derail or hamper their ties”.

Riaz Haq said...

Given their history, one might have expected India and China to be two of the most vocal critics of Russia’s invasion and effort to in essence colonize, or recolonize, Ukraine. And yet neither country has done so. Indeed, both have seen the Russian invasion as an opportunity to improve ties and expand trade, especially in fossil fuels, with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

By BY MERRILL MATTHEWS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3662321-why-arent-india-and-china-opposing-russias-ukraine-colonization/

Colonization is defined as “the act of taking control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and sending people from your own country to live there.” Sounds a lot like what imperial Russia is up to in Ukraine.


Of course, part or all of what is now Ukraine has long been the object of foreign invasion, domination and colonization, especially by Russia, Poland and the Soviet Union. But with the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991. Though not without its challenges, the country has been free and independent for 30 years.

India, too, has a long and troubled history of being colonized, primarily by Great Britain. The British, under the auspices of the British East India Company, first landed in India in 1608 to engage in trade, especially tea and spices.

But the East India Company expanded its power and control, with India formerly becoming part of the British Empire in 1765.

India’s people eventually undertook a decades-long struggle to free themselves from British colonial rule, obtaining their independence in 1947, only 44 years before Ukraine became independent. But not before thousands of Indians were imprisoned, injured or killed in the effort. That struggle saw the rise of Mahatma Gandhi, who became an international role model for how to lead a nonviolent revolution.

If India believes it’s acceptable, or at least not too problematic, for Russia to invade Ukraine to drag the country kicking and screaming back under Russian rule, would it also be acceptable if Great Britain were to decide to drag India back into the British empire?

Of course not, which is why India’s silence on the Russian invasion is so troubling.


China is not India, and it was never colonized the way India was. But China did experience decades of European colonizing powers, including Great Britain, knocking at its door, demanding trade.

Those conflicts led to what’s known as the 19th century Opium Wars. The British were heavy consumers of some of China’s most important products, especially tea, silk and porcelain. But China required traders to pay for those products with silver.

British merchants were transferring so much silver to China that Great Britain’s silver reserves began running low. The Brits needed a product the Chinese were eager to buy to get that silver back. The solution was opium, mostly made in India.

When the Chinese government took steps to stop, or at least limit, the opium trade, the first Opium War erupted (1839-42). The British won that war easily, and imposed an expansive treaty known as the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842, which included ceding control of Hong Kong to Great Britain. China simply had not developed the technology and military skills to stand up to Great Britain.

------------------

European colonization, which included North and South America, has a long and checkered history. There were some benefits to both the colonies and colonizers, but the human rights abuses, especially in Latin America and parts of Africa and Asia, which includes India and China, were atrocious.

Imperial Russia is, once again, seeking to expand its empire. Those countries that were once the subject of colonizing efforts should be the loudest voices in opposition.

Riaz Haq said...

The US state department spokesman Ned Price has put External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on the mat as regards the latter’s remarks questioning the raison d’etre of the US-Pakistan relationship.

By M.K. Bhadrakumar

https://www.newsclick.in/india-can-live-US-pakistan-makeover

Yet, some national dailies have rushed to eagerly attribute it to the US displeasure over India’s stance on the conflict in Ukraine. One daily rather churlishly advised the government, “As Delhi demonstrates “strategic autonomy” to engage with every side — Quad one week, and Russia and China the next at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) in Samarkand — and work around Western sanctions to buy oil from Russia, and keep friends in all camps, it may have to come to terms that others in world play the same game.”

In this unseemly hurry to link Ned’s remarks with India’s strategic autonomy, what these commentators overlook is that the US spokesman was speaking on a special day when the Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto was visiting the state department at the invitation of the Secretary of State Antony Blinken — and on top of it, the two countries were commemorating the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations.

Indeed, it is another matter that Jaishankar’s remarks were not only unwarranted — casting aspersions on the US-Pakistan relationship — but untimely, and perhaps, even provocative. The only charitable explanation could be that Jaishankar was grandstanding as a consummate politician before an audience of Indian-Americans, with an eye on his “core constituency” in India. The mitigating factor, of course, is that he has only given back to the Americans in their own coin, who consider it their prerogative to butt into other countries’ external relations with gratuitous comments — India’s with Russia, for instance.

Ned Price’s remarks have all the elements of a policy statement. He said: “We don’t view our relationship with Pakistan, and … our relationship with India as in relation to one another. These are both partners of ours with different points of emphasis in each. We look at both as partners, because we do have in many cases shared values. We do have in many cases shared interests. And the relationship we have with India stands on its own. The relationship we have with Pakistan stands on its own. We also want to do everything we can to see to it that these neighbours have relations with one another that are as constructive as can be possible. And so that’s another point of emphasis.”

What stands out at the most obvious level is that Price reiterated the US policy in the recent decades since the Cold War ended to “de-hyphenate” Washington’s relationships with India and Pakistan while also promoting a normal relationship between the two South Asian rivals who are not on talking terms. Price pointed out that the two relationships have “different points of emphasis in each.”

Interestingly, Price equated India with Pakistan as partner countries with which the US has “in many cases shared values” and “in many cases shared interests.” This needs to be understood properly. Washington has taken note of Pakistan’s objection over the prioritisation of India in the US’ regional policies in South Asia in the past.

This shift removes a major hurdle in the trajectory of US-Pakistan relationship and is necessitated by a variety of factors following the humiliating defeat that the US suffered in Afghanistan. Here, security considerations certainly constitute one key factor.

The killing of the al-Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri was only possible due to the help from Pakistan. Equally, Afghan situation remains dangerous and the US cannot turn its back on what’s happening out there. The US’ dependence on Pakistani intelligence has only increased.

Riaz Haq said...

By Nirupama Subramaian, Foreign Affairs and National Security Editor, Indian Express


“As Delhi demonstrates “strategic autonomy” to engage with every side — Quad one week, and Russia and China the next at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) in Samarkand — and work around Western sanctions to buy oil from Russia, and keep friends in all camps, it may have to come to terms that others in world play the same game.”

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/us-pakistan-f-16-package-india-jaishankar-concern-8175141/

India has lashed out at the US over its F-16 package to Pakistan
Why has the Biden Administration reversed Trump's freeze on military ties with Islamabad with a $450 million package for a lifetime upgrade of Pakistan's F-16 fleet? What is the deal, and why is Delhi unhappy?

Speaking at a meeting with the non-resident Indian community in Washington on Sunday, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar lashed out at the US for its decision to provide Pakistan with a $450 million package for what the Pentagon has called the “F-16 case for sustainment and related equipment”. Jaishankar questioned the merits of the US-Pakistan partnership, saying it had “not served” either country. When asked about the US justification that the fighter planes were meant to assist Pakistan in its counter-terrorism efforts, Jaishankar retorted: “You’re not fooling anybody by saying these things”.

Riaz Haq said...

New Order with a Blend of Western Liberalism and Eastern Civilizational Nationalism | Institut Montaigne


By Ram Madhav Founding Member of the Governing Council of India Foundation (Hindu Nationalist RSS)

"...no one wants the present world order to continue except the US and its [Western] allies."

https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/analysis/new-order-blend-western-liberalism-and-eastern-civilizational-nationalism

The conflict in Ukraine has begun reshaping the global order. Ram Madhav, Former National General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Member of the Governing Council of India Foundation, questions the legitimacy of the Western leadership model for “Ukraine Shifting the World Order”. Shedding light on the increasingly heteropolar nature of our world, he advocates for a new world order based on 21st century realities: one where nationalism and liberalism can coexist and where the Global South is a primary stakeholder.



-----------

The Western leadership model
Two important questions arise. Firstly, is a uniform world order wedded to those three principles mandatory for the world, or can there be diversity? Secondly, who is responsible for wrecking the current liberal order? The Western powers themselves or their recalcitrant challengers like Russia and China?

After the Second World War, Western leadership villainized national identity. Nationalism was blamed for the two wars and all modern nation-states were mandated to follow the same template: liberal democracy, open market capitalism and globalization. Other forms were condemned as retrograde. When India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru mobilized nations to build a non-alignment movement, the Western leadership disapprovingly dubbed him a "neutralist". The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991, and a wave of enthusiasm engulfed the Western world. A unipolar world order based on Western liberal principles seemed inevitable and a fait accompli.

Fukuyama's 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man argued Western liberal democracies would become "the endpoint of mankind’s socio-cultural evolution, and the final form of human government". Samuel Huntington directly challenged Fukuyama with his provocative 1996 "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, stating that far from unipolarity, the ideological world had been divided on civilizational identities, the new source of conflict in the world, with "each learning to coexist with the others". Later years proved that the collapse of the Soviet Union had not moved the world from bipolarity to unipolarity, but to multipolarity. Several nation-states, with long cultural and civilizational histories, like China, Arab countries and India, have emerged as the new poles in the world. We also witnessed the rise of non-state poles - multinational corporations, social media giants, new age religious movements, non-governmental bodies like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Oxfam and CARE, and even terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. With influences beyond the national boundaries of the states, these created a heteropolar world.

The erosion of the liberal democratic world order is a Western failure
The hegemonic nature of the world order is eroding with the rise of the heteropolar world. Lofty ideals that it cherished - liberal democracy, open markets, human rights and multilateralism - have been facing severe scrutiny and challenge in the last two decades. Unfortunately, the institutions created for sustaining that world order have increasingly grown weak and ineffective. The world appears to be moving inexorably in the direction of anarchy. The Ukrainian-Russian war is the latest, not the first, in the sequence of events that have catalyzed the collapse of the old world order. The West wants the world to believe that Russia and Putin were the culprits for ushering in anarchy and attempting to destroy what they had built over the last seven decades. But the West cannot escape responsibility for the failure of its hegemony.

Riaz Haq said...

As the world lurches through the growing pains of massive geopolitical change, the US’ relationship with India will increasingly take center stage. Washington likes to see itself as providing a geopolitical center of gravity that is inherently attractive to nations like India, especially against regional competitors such as China. As the US is about to discover, however, India and China have a shared ambition about who should dominate the Pacific in the coming century, and it doesn’t include the US. Op Ed by Scott Ritter

https://www.energyintel.com/00000183-21d9-d467-adc7-21fdd54f0000

On Aug. 19, India’s minister of external affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, gave a speech at a university in Thailand where he stated that relations between India and China were going through “an extremely difficult phase” and that an “Asian Century” seemed unlikely unless the two nations found a way to “join hands” and start working together.

For many observers, Jaishankar’s speech was taken as an opportunity for the US to drive a wedge between India and China, exploiting an ongoing border dispute along the Himalayan frontier to push India further into a pro-US orbit together with other Western-leaning regional powers. What these observers overlooked, however, was that the Indian minister was seeking the exact opposite from his speech, signaling that India was, in fact, interested in working with China to develop joint policies that would seek to replace US-led Western hegemony in the Pacific.

Struggle for Leadership

More than six decades ago, then-US Senator John F. Kennedy noted that there was a “struggle between India and China for the economic and political leadership of the East, for the respect of all Asia, for the opportunity to demonstrate whose way of life is the better.” The US, Kennedy argued, needed to focus on providing India the help it needed to win that struggle — even if India wasn’t asking for that help or, indeed, seeking to “win” any geopolitical contest with China.

Today, the relationships between the US, India and China have matured, with all three wrestling with complex, and often contradictory, policies that are simultaneously cooperative and confrontational. Notwithstanding this, the US continues to err on the side of helping India achieve a geopolitical “win” over China. One need only consider the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” conceived in 2007, but dormant until 2017, when it was resurrected under US leadership to bring together the US, Japan, Australia and India in an effort to create a regional counterweight to China’s growing influence.

There was a time when cooler heads cautioned against such an assertive US-led posture on a regional response to an expansive, and expanding, Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific region. This line of thinking held that strong Indian relationships with Tokyo and Canberra should be allowed to naturally progress, independent of US regional ambitions.

These same “cool heads” argued that the US needed to be realistic in its expectations on relations between India and China, avoiding the pitfalls of Cold War-era “zero-sum game” calculations. The US should appreciate that India needed to implement a foreign policy that best met Indian needs. Moreover, they argued, a US-Indian relationship that was solely focused on China would not age well, given the transitory realities of a changing global geopolitical dynamic.

The Asian Century

The key to deciphering Jaishanker’s strategic intent in his Thailand comments lay in his use of the term “Asian Century.” This echoed the words of former Chinese reformist leader Deng Xiaoping, who, in a meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1988, declared that “in recent years people have been saying that the next century will be the century of Asia and the Pacific, as if that were sure to be the case. I disagree with this view.” Deng went on to explain that unless China and India focus their respective and collective energies on developing their economies, there could, in fact, be no “Asian Century.”

Riaz Haq said...

The Asian Century

The key to deciphering Jaishanker’s strategic intent in his Thailand comments lay in his use of the term “Asian Century.” This echoed the words of former Chinese reformist leader Deng Xiaoping, who, in a meeting with former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1988, declared that “in recent years people have been saying that the next century will be the century of Asia and the Pacific, as if that were sure to be the case. I disagree with this view.” Deng went on to explain that unless China and India focus their respective and collective energies on developing their economies, there could, in fact, be no “Asian Century.”

While Washington may not have heard the subtle implications of Jainshankar’s words, Beijing appears to have done so. Almost immediately after the text of the Indian minister’s comments was made public, the spokesperson for China’s foreign minister declared that both India and China “have the wisdom and capability to help each other succeed rather than undercutting each other.” The takeaway from this exchange is that while both China and India view their ongoing territorial disputes as problematic, they are able and willing to keep their eye on the bigger picture — the ascendancy of the so-called “Asian Century”.

The fact is that India and China have been working toward this goal for some time now. Both are critical participants in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which envisions the growth and empowerment of a trans-Eurasian economic zone that can compete with the economies of the US and Europe on a global scale. Likewise, India and China are actively cooperating within the framework of the Brics economic forum, which is emerging as a direct competitor to the Western-dominated G7.

While it is possible for India to navigate a policy path balancing the US and China in the short term, eventually it will need to go all in on China if its aspirations for an “Asian Century” are ever to be met. This narrative is overlooked by those in the US pursuing zero-sum policies with India when it comes to China.

Given the destiny inherent in the collective embrace of an “Asian Century” by India and China, the US could well find itself on the outside looking in when it comes to those wielding influence in the Pacific going forward. One thing is for certain — the “American Pacific Century” which encompasses the period between the Spanish-American War and the post-Cold War era, where US military, political, and economic power reigned supreme, has run its course. Whether or not India and China will be able to supplant it with an “Asian Century” is yet to be seen. But one thing is for certain — the strategic intent is certainly there.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer whose service over a 20-plus-year career included tours of duty in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements, serving on the staff of US Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War and later as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq from 1991-98. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

Riaz Haq said...

For US Visa, Over 2-Year Wait For New Delhi, Just 2 Days For Beijing
There's an appointment wait-time of 833 days for applications from Delhi and 848 days from Mumbai for visitor visas.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/us-visa-appointment-wait-time-the-shocking-difference-for-indians-3387535

Indian visa applicants require a wait-time of over two years just for getting an appointment, a US government website showed, while the timeframe is only two days for countries like China.

There's an appointment wait-time of 833 days for applications from Delhi and 848 days from Mumbai for visitor visas, shows the US State Department's website. In contrast, the wait-time is only two days for Beijing and 450 days for Islamabad

For student visas, the wait time is 430 days for Delhi and Mumbai. Surprisingly, it's only one day for Islamabad, and two for Beijing.

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, who is in the US, yesterday raised the issue of visa applications backlog with the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The top US diplomat said he's "extremely sensitive" to the issue and that they are facing a similar situation around the world, a challenge arising due to Covid.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/wait-times.html