Congress questions BJP on Foundational pacts with US

[dadeechi]

 

[dadeechi]

 

[dadeechi]

 

[dadeechi]

 

[Nilgiri]

It is peacetime military logistics. What is the big hue and cry?

A surrender of national sovereignty only happens if we have no control over the visit and stationing of US forces and materials.....but AFAIK they require permission for each instance, and only applies to peacetime activities.

 

[dadeechi]

It is peacetime military logistics. What is the big hue and cry?

A surrender of national sovereignty only happens if we have no control over the visit and stationing of US forces and materials.....but AFAIK they require permission for each instance, and only applies to peacetime activities.

There is one big difference between Congress and BJP

Congress took the straight forward approach to issue at hand

1) Foundational Agreements - Will not sign as it would encroach upon the sovereignty of the country

2) RAFALEs - DA needs to adhere to the RFP terms and need to work with HAL as partner instead of selecting it's own partner in Reliance


on the other hand Modi took the approach of giving it a try

1) RAFALEs - cancelled the RFP to give DA the option to select it's own partner. But DA started to back off from the ToT. Hence deal was stuck with the excuse that Price is high.

2) Foundational Agreements - Seeing the RAFALE deal impasse, US had pitched it's fighters. Modi government agreed to provide a 2nd opportunity to US to put forward their proposal since the MMRCA was cancelled. This was followed by

-- Willing allow 100% FDI in defence if the ToT is right
-- Willing to sign the foundational agreements
-- Willing to buy US fighters

The grapevine is that the proposal did not have enough ToT and the bureaucracy is not inclined to defend. Meaning the government can still go ahead with the deals but tomorrow it could turn out to be a scam.

Expect the RAFALE deal to be announced in the next few days.

Gripen's chances have drastically gone up now.

 

[Nilgiri]

There is one big difference between Congress and BJP

Congress took the straight forward approach to issue at hand

1) Foundational Agreements - Will not sign as it would encroach upon the sovereignty of the country

2) RAFALEs - DA needs to adhere to the RFP terms and need to work with HAL as partner instead of selecting it's own partner in Reliance


on the other hand Modi took the approach of giving it a try

1) RAFALEs - cancelled the RFP to give DA the option to select it's own partner. But DA started to back off from the ToT. Hence deal was stuck with the excuse that Price is high.

2) Foundational Agreements - Seeing the RAFALE deal impasse, US had pitched it's fighters. Modi government agreed to provide a 2nd opportunity to US to put forward their proposal since the MMRCA was cancelled. This was followed by

-- Willing allow 100% FDI in defence if the ToT is right
-- Willing to sign the foundational agreements
-- Willing to buy US fighters

The grapevine is that the proposal did not have enough ToT and the bureaucracy is not inclined to defend. Meaning the government can still go ahead with the deals but tomorrow it could turn out to be a scam.

Expect the RAFALE deal to be announced in the next few days.

Gripen's chances have drastically gone up now.

Whats most important to me is that India gets the best value for money. The whole format at the beginning by segregating the price from the system performance parameters was spurious self defeating move. Every single bidder should have kept in the loop and their best offers should have been played against each other till we get the best value for money...since this MMRCA is just to make up the required airframes (about 200) between MKI and LCA roles till 5th gen comes into play.

By only going to the "winner", you then have cut out a huge negotiating advantage by yourself.

In fact at no point should the technical winner name ever been released, even after choosing a final system (in a large matrix of judging performance vs absolute lowest cost negotiated)

A stupid process, designed by a stupid administration (UPA)...IAF should not hold the taxpayer hostage for an interim system.

So I fully agree with NDA administration revisiting other offers, either for real or as a bluff.

Gripen is not that different from LCA (in overall role/parameters), I dont know why it was even included in the process to begin with.

F-16 we don't need, but if we got a good deal (say production wise + geopolitically wise) its fine.

Mig 35 would have been ok choice as well given we already operate 29s.

F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter are all the top dogs and every one should have been played against each other price wise along with the others. Thats the only way to expose the absolute bottom line of each + maximum ToT + customisation for India needs + insurance/liability and whatever other issues were that keep coming up in Rafale conundrum.

Anyways I don't see this much related to this deal with US for sharing of facilities (under peacetime and with certain conditions - we already do this, this just formalises procedures and sends a message/framework to other countries we have engage with on security basis either positively or negatively).

It does not preclude us from signing similar deals with other countries (Russia, Euro, ASEAN etc).

In a way I see it as similar to Indo-US nuclear deal. Its the opening that gets everything rolling with the countries that India truly wants to expand cooperation with. Thats simply the status of US these days, we have to judge the pros and cons of the long term of this neutrally.

Not by listening to a former administration who will oppose anything this one does for the sake of opposing it (including their own bills like GST)...using the same catchphrases they always use. Its way too early for that anyway.

 

[dadeechi]

Whats most important to me is that India gets the best value for money. The whole format at the beginning by segregating the price from the system performance parameters was spurious self defeating move. Every single bidder should have kept in the loop and their best offers should have been played against each other till we get the best value for money...since this MMRCA is just to make up the required airframes (about 200) between MKI and LCA roles till 5th gen comes into play.

By only going to the "winner", you then have cut out a huge negotiating advantage by yourself.

In fact at no point should the technical winner name ever been released, even after choosing a final system (in a large matrix of judging performance vs absolute lowest cost negotiated)

A stupid process, designed by a stupid administration (UPA)...IAF should not hold the taxpayer hostage for an interim system.

So I fully agree with NDA administration revisiting other offers, either for real or as a bluff.

Gripen is not that different from LCA (in overall role/parameters), I dont know why it was even included in the process to begin with.

F-16 we don't need, but if we got a good deal (say production wise + geopolitically wise) its fine.

Mig 35 would have been ok choice as well given we already operate 29s.

F-18, Rafale, Eurofighter are all the top dogs and every one should have been played against each other price wise along with the others. Thats the only way to expose the absolute bottom line of each + maximum ToT + customisation for India needs + insurance/liability and whatever other issues were that keep coming up in Rafale conundrum.

Anyways I don't see this much related to this deal with US for sharing of facilities (under peacetime and with certain conditions - we already do this, this just formalises procedures and sends a message/framework to other countries we have engage with on security basis either positively or negatively).

It does not preclude us from signing similar deals with other countries (Russia, Euro, ASEAN etc).

In a way I see it as similar to Indo-US nuclear deal. Its the opening that gets everything rolling with the countries that India truly wants to expand cooperation with. Thats simply the status of US these days, we have to judge the pros and cons of the long term of this neutrally.

Not by listening to a former administration who will oppose anything this one does for the sake of opposing it (including their own bills like GST)...using the same catchphrases they always use. Its way too early for that anyway.

Yes. The whole deal has become beyond ridiculous.

 

[kasper95]

It is peacetime military logistics. What is the big hue and cry?

A surrender of national sovereignty only happens if we have no control over the visit and stationing of US forces and materials.....but AFAIK they require permission for each instance, and only applies to peacetime activities.

if they have to come on invitation ,then why do you need an agreement. I will wait till the fine print comes out.

 

[Nilgiri]

if they have to come on invitation ,then why do you need an agreement. I will wait till the fine print comes out.

Yes thats the best approach. Much hue and cry over what hasnt even been signed yet.

My guess would be that it will be on "shall be open" basis. i.e certain bases will be open on both sides to each other for peacetime deployments on an item list.

So say spare sparts for US destroyers, access to machine shops, fuel depots and the likes (but no weapon stockpiles).

This makes peacetime deployments cheaper and easier for both sides since they dont have to wait for a clearance each time and they can plan long term with greater clarity and combined strategy.

In times of natural calamities, there is an added advantage too since another country's assets come under your disposal temporarily which gives you more options and speed.

Say an Indian submarine faces a problem underwater on a deployment, US assistance will come immediately with whats available...rather than going through the whole process of bureaucrat telephoning his counterpart and then waiting for the planning to go through the command chains. Basically a bunch of scenarios like this one through such an agreement will already have been designed beforehand where such things complement. That allows India to focus its money on developing more urgent capabilities as its budget grows. Access to US Logistics is huge and underrated.

Warehouses and such are completely under the control of the home country they are stationed in (and thus nothing quarantined etc.), no permanent staff from the other country other than whats approved beforehand....and possibly an account created to debit/credit what was used (fuel/material/lodging wise + whatever else is agreed) that is cleared every X number of years + creation of a time this agreement is good for (and has to be renewed to account for anything going awry).

 

[dadeechi]

Congress Opposes Logistics Support Agreement With US


By IANS

Published: 14th April 2016 10:57 PM

Last Updated: 14th April 2016 10:57 PM

• Photos

• 

NEW DELHI: The Congress on Thursday voiced "strong reservations" over the government's move to sign a military logistics support agreement with the US, saying the Narendra Modi government does not have the mandate to push India into any military alliance.

"Though America is India's strategic partner, we have our strong reservations and concerns against this agreement," Deputy Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Anand Sharma told reporters here.

"The LSA (Logistics support agreement) was earlier proposed by the US in the year 2004, and for one decade the two countries have been in talks. But India had resisted it during the 10 years of UPA's rule. We did not agree to it because we see it as intrusive. It will show India being drawn into a military alliance," Sharma said, insisting that such a situation will not be favourable to India.

He added that India has strategic relations with the US and also with Russia, China, Japan and Indonesia and it had maintained balance among its various strategic partners but had never been part of a power bloc.

Sharma also said the Modi government has not got the mandate to push India into any military alliance which could prove detrimental to its interest in the long term.

"Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his government do not have a national mandate to push India into a situation where it sinks in a closer, deeper military alliance and becomes part of a larger operational design and requirement of the US in Asia and Pacific and South China Sea," Sharma said.

"It will be detrimental to India's strategic and security interests. It will also undermine the critical geo-strategic balance and also the balance of forces in India's immediate and extended neighbourhood in the region," Sharma added.

US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar at a joint press conference here had announced that the two countries have 'in principle' agreed to conclude a logistics support.

India and the US will ink two more agreements, apart from the LSA, including a Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for assistance in geospatial intelligence.

The Congress has described all three agreements as a grave threat to India's strategic communication system.

"These three foundational agreements that have been kept on hold. The second one -- CISMOA -- would take into its embrace the communication network of Indian Armed forces, the radars and signals, including that of the air force and the Indian Navy, which can jeopardise our operational preparedness and strategies," Sharma said.

"The government has said they want to have this LSA on a case to case basis. But for specific such cases, the arrangements already exist with Russia, US and other strategic partners. Therefore, there is no need of such an agreement," he said.

On Wednesday, Congress leader and former defence minister A.K. Antony criticised the government's decision to ink the logistics agreement, saying it would affect the independence of India's foreign policy and strategic autonomy.

Antony said the erstwhile United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by then Congress had resisted the agreement for 10 years, and that it would be disastrous for India.

"It is a disastrous decision. The government should retract it," he said.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nat...reement-With-US/2016/04/14/article3380500.ece