India a natural ally to the USA: Pentagon

[Vajra_Yuddh]

A welcome step towards developing wonderful technological and mutual people to people ties with USA. But I don't think India is in any mood to join any camps. We have become too big to join any camp and hence follow our age-old policy of "strategic partnership" rather than any formal alliance.

NATO was built to counter USSR and Warsaw Pact which is significantly losing its clout; NATO countries have to toe in US lines while we are independent country with independent stance in foreign policy and military doctrine; NATO is a liability only an economy the size of US can manage. We should focus on extending our "influence" in southeast and fareast Asia alongside Southern African countries and Latin America.

We are way better off being neutral and friendly than being any formal ally. We are already allies against terrorism that even Russia is allied to US against terrorists. So "strategic partnership" is the magic mantra.

 

[Dash]

Nothing wrong in having allies don't have to go it along....
Having buddies like the Japs who are geographically closer to us is far more important than NATO........

India is currently standing at place in the world where it gets the best from the best and everyone.

At this point of time, we need to focus more on strengthening our foundation by getting advance techs, helthcare, nuke deals, techs on agriculture, FDI on infrastructure and much more.

Being alligned to countries will make us loose our 50 years stand on NAM and second we are telling the world and getting into a grove to sign all those pacts which we have not signed to date coz we are not in any bodies camp.

This has kept our integrety intact and out soverignty. For the time we need to co-work and make more partnerships. If you forecast the future today, there wont be any NATO in 50 years. Europe is reducing its dependency on US, Japan crying out to make US carriers leave its waters.

I think there are more to come, we can be in some alliance in the future where new groups will be formed. Not Now!

 

[JayAtl]

Article written by an Indian Lalit K Jah, rejected and baised.

Paksher being a person who like me, lives in the US. Surely you have seen or it seems to ignore the very many official pentagon officials who have substantiated this article, many many times over on CNN ,MSNBC and Fox and have done so many times over in last few years.

So yeah, feel free to call the earth flat all you want. but, if you want anyone here to take you seriously and see you as a person of integrity- you FAIL!

 

[JayAtl]

And here I will point to Iraq as exhibit A. Iraq not only purchased ~ $30B worth of arms - and that too, in 1980s dollars - they played a key strategic role for the US in keeping Iran bogged down and causing $350B worth of destruction to that country while killing 1.5 million people. Yet, once the conflict with Iran was over, how was Iraq handled and how quickly Saddam fell out of favour?

I would guesstimate that $30B in the mid 1980s would easily be worth more than $100B today, to put current Indian defence purchases in context.

There is an expression that's widely used in the US, "What have you done for me lately". It's good to keep this in mind.

I think its a false equivalency here. There is a global economic partnerships that precedes the arms sale and that was not existing with Iraq. Iraq was a foreign policy partnership, with zero economic alliance other than arms purchase. Mind you much of those arms were Aid and not paid for by Iraq. I see your point of being cautious and its a valid point to always be cautious. However, I do see it as being a totally different situation given civilian nuclear deal and the as I stated earlier the every many economic ties to the US, critical for both economies.

 

[Indiarox]

India is currently standing at place in the world where it gets the best from the best and everyone.

At this point of time, we need to focus more on strengthening our foundation by getting advance techs, helthcare, nuke deals, techs on agriculture, FDI on infrastructure and much more.

Being alligned to countries will make us loose our 50 years stand on NAM and second we are telling the world and getting into a grove to sign all those pacts which we have not signed to date coz we are not in any bodies camp.

This has kept our integrety intact and out soverignty. For the time we need to co-work and make more partnerships. If you forecast the future today, there wont be any NATO in 50 years. Europe is reducing its dependency on US, Japan crying out to make US carriers leave its waters.

I think there are more to come, we can be in some alliance in the future where new groups will be formed. Not Now!

woaw Hold on im only saying that lets have some one close to us who can back us up if you know who decides to get aggressive.......

 

[Dash]

woaw Hold on im only saying that lets have some one close to us who can back us up if you know who decides to get aggressive.......

Ok, held it So tell me, how someone close will help us if someone decides to be aggressive. coz at the end of the day, its us. and no signs of any aggressiveness.......Dont go by the media buddy.

 

[Veeru]

Article written by an Indian Lalit K Jah, rejected and baised.

But dozens of pakistanis were jumping up and down when a article written by a pakistani that too former defense officer was published in some Russian newspaper calling for Russia-pakistan friendship.

Plz, have equal standard.

 

[TechLahore]

I think its a false equivalency here. There is a global economic partnerships that precedes the arms sale and that was not existing with Iraq. Iraq was a foreign policy partnership, with zero economic alliance other than arms purchase. Mind you much of

I am sorry if you find this hard to agree with, but I will say it anyway. And not because I am from Pakistan or because I have a bone to pick with India. But the fact is that there is no "global economic partnership". India is seen as a market, pure and simple. The reason western companies are interested in India is because you have 1.2 billion people in your country, and even though your per capita income is low, the population makes up for it.

To clarify, Iraq bought its weapons and used loans from Arab countries as well as its oil exports to pay for them. It had a per capita income of over $10,000 prior to the war. Once again, in 1980s dollars; probably more like 30 or 40K today. Even with a population of 18 or 20M, it presented a substantial market. Moreover, from ships to energy facilities to water treatment plants, heavy machinery, luxury goods, cars and much more, Iraq bought it all from the west. Iraq was a market, and not just for military goods.

Kind of like the UAE today. Yes, they buy tons of military hardware. But they also buy billions upon billions in civilian aircraft, construction machinery, cement, steel, and pretty much everything under the sun, from the west. If memory serves, even today, despite being a tiny country, the UAE is importing something close to $11B a year from the US. In contrast, India imports roughly $18B a year from the US. The US hopes that this will grow and India will favour US goods, and send more $$ their way. Ultimately, that's where the US' economic interest lies. As they say, no point putting lipstick on a pig.

One of the US' frustrations with China is that China is pretty tough about protecting its own economic interest. For example, it has averaged a trade *surplus* of $350B annually over the last couple of years. India in contrast has averaged a *deficit* of $110B annually over the same period. Not hard to see whose strategy is working...

As for the US' strategic interest, I think it's pretty clear that they deem China to be their most significant strategic challenger and using India to act as a speedbump for China would be fairly useful to the US, whether or not it is so to India.

Anyhow, I am frankly 100% in favour of a strong India-US partnership. As I have expressed earlier in this thread, I can see several advantages accruing to both sides if India were to join NATO. Good luck to India as it goes down the path chosen by Mr. Manmohan Singh.

 

[rockstarIN]

^^^

I do not agree,

We know that our biggest stregnth is our middle class market, but we are not ruled by fools. We are also protective for our ecomony, you are forgetting one of the main reason we got a big middle class not mainly because of our industrial base, but because our our man power i.e outsourcing. In that way, US at loss dealing with us.

You can see the big buy outs by the Indian companies in US/UK. They get the finances to buy out the US/UK companies from their banks only. Here, everybody knows whats their as well as the opposite's stregnths and weaknesses and all play for a win win situation. Remember Indian/Chinese PM's joint statement that there is room in the global economy to grow both for India & China.

Rgds,

 

[Surrender2me]

But the bottom line,DON"T TRUST USA

 

[Vajra_Yuddh]

But the bottom line,DON"T TRUST USA

Never say not; instead say "trust oneself".

 

[foxbat]

I am sorry if you find this hard to agree with, but I will say it anyway. And not because I am from Pakistan or because I have a bone to pick with India. But the fact is that there is no "global economic partnership". India is seen as a market, pure and simple. The reason western companies are interested in India is because you have 1.2 billion people in your country, and even though your per capita income is low, the population makes up for it.

And India sees USA as a market, and thats represented by exports worth $22 B to USA in 2010 so far. Isnt that really what a global economic partnership means in a broad way.. Mutual trade..??

One of the US' frustrations with China is that China is pretty tough about protecting its own economic interest. For example, it has averaged a trade *surplus* of $350B annually over the last couple of years. India in contrast has averaged a *deficit* of $110B annually over the same period. Not hard to see whose strategy is working...

But isnt the trade balance with the US in favor of India.. By about 8-9 billion USD every year.. If the $110B is the total figure, we all know its driven primarily by oil imports..

As for the US' strategic interest, I think it's pretty clear that they deem China to be their most significant strategic challenger and using India to act as a speedbump for China would be fairly useful to the US, whether or not it is so to India.

Anyhow, I am frankly 100% in favour of a strong India-US partnership. As I have expressed earlier in this thread, I can see several advantages accruing to both sides if India were to join NATO. Good luck to India as it goes down the path chosen by Mr. Manmohan Singh.

Not gonna happen.. India will not tie itself down in a military alliance...G20, P5 kind of stuff is all right though..

 

[TechLahore]

But isnt the trade balance with the US in favor of India.. By about 8-9 billion USD every year.. If the $110B is the total figure, we all know its driven primarily by oil imports..

Every country can take that position. The net-net is that China imports more oil than India does and there is still a $460B *annual* delta between China's position and India's.

Not gonna happen.. India will not tie itself down in a military alliance...G20, P5 kind of stuff is all right though..

Let's wait and see if India enters a military alliance. Only time will tell.

 

[blain2]

India and US are natural ally.......

peace & democracy can not sustain without proper security meassures......

india should join NATO..

UNSC will serve no purpose...

Does "North Atlantic" mean anything to you?

Secondly, being a natural "ally" has a connotation that should not be lost on any one. It requires the ally to do something in return for being an ally of the United States. If the US wants India to be an ally, it means India would have to have a more pronounced stance against China, in return for the US' military and economic largess aimed at India. This in the medium to long term will be a destabilizing affair as policies and postures would be made up which will result in counter posturing by the Chinese (in all of this, Pakistan has a very small part to play though).

Our alliance with the United States ticked off a lot of people in the SEATO and CENTO days. Not suggesting that India would not safeguard her interests, but the give and take required will definitely lead to some difficult choices being made down the road.

 

[JayAtl]

I am sorry if you find this hard to agree with, but I will say it anyway. And not because I am from Pakistan or because I have a bone to pick with India. But the fact is that there is no "global economic partnership". India is seen as a market, pure and simple. The reason western companies are interested in India is because you have 1.2 billion people in your country, and even though your per capita income is low, the population makes up for it.

To clarify, Iraq bought its weapons and used loans from Arab countries as well as its oil exports to pay for them. It had a per capita income of over $10,000 prior to the war. Once again, in 1980s dollars; probably more like 30 or 40K today. Even with a population of 18 or 20M, it presented a substantial market. Moreover, from ships to energy facilities to water treatment plants, heavy machinery, luxury goods, cars and much more, Iraq bought it all from the west. Iraq was a market, and not just for military goods.

Kind of like the UAE today. Yes, they buy tons of military hardware. But they also buy billions upon billions in civilian aircraft, construction machinery, cement, steel, and pretty much everything under the sun, from the west. If memory serves, even today, despite being a tiny country, the UAE is importing something close to $11B a year from the US. In contrast, India imports roughly $18B a year from the US. The US hopes that this will grow and India will favour US goods, and send more $$ their way. Ultimately, that's where the US' economic interest lies. As they say, no point putting lipstick on a pig.

One of the US' frustrations with China is that China is pretty tough about protecting its own economic interest. For example, it has averaged a trade *surplus* of $350B annually over the last couple of years. India in contrast has averaged a *deficit* of $110B annually over the same period. Not hard to see whose strategy is working...

As for the US' strategic interest, I think it's pretty clear that they deem China to be their most significant strategic challenger and using India to act as a speedbump for China would be fairly useful to the US, whether or not it is so to India.

Anyhow, I am frankly 100% in favour of a strong India-US partnership. As I have expressed earlier in this thread, I can see several advantages accruing to both sides if India were to join NATO. Good luck to India as it goes down the path chosen by Mr. Manmohan Singh.

I don't totally disagree with you ( you are spot on, on your analysis of US/ China/ India triangle), but I see the relationship between India and US, especially given the prestigious Carnegie think thank institutes claims that India is going to be the 3rd largest economy in world by 2050 or earlier, as being tied more to an economic agenda vs a foreign policy agenda.

Even with the population of the country in billions( India) the balance of ones
" purchasing power" for goods and services, is tilted heavily towards the US . With all the oil you have cited as being used by china and India, the US still uses 25% of the world's oil.

I tell you one thing- Indians need to understand that stability would mean a lot more in foreign investments. A company is more acceptable to doing business with China because they know that nobody is going attack it and that the more they depend on foreign investment and trade- china itself is not going to be the purveyor of any attack.

Alternatively, India is still viewed with caution because of the threat of war erupting with Pakistan. This why I say, short of a terrorist attack , India has no interest in attacking Pakistan.

Pakistan should understand that growing it economic status is more beneficial for its people vs. always trying to rile up some anti Indian agenda. Whether they have a right to do so, is moot. Because foreign investments are looking for stability. Pakistanis are a brilliant people with a girth of talent, yet religious bias and their political rabble -rousers have kept it from being a powerhouse in this region.

BTW, I issued my very first Thank You on these boards- to you today. The kind of discourse you have shown , is very commendable. while not being in total agreement with you on all viewpoints--I appreciate and respect your viewpoints and specially the civility in your comments .