India in talks to open ports, bases to US military

[INDIAPOSITIVE]

SOURCE: wsws.org

According to Indian media reports, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has begun discussions with the US on a military Logistics Support Agreement (LSA). If finalized, the LSA would allow the US military to routinely use Indian ports and army and air force bases for refuelling and otherwise staging and provisioning its deployments.

Under the LSA, the US would ostensibly guarantee similar rights to the Indian military. This, however, would be largely a dead letter, for while the US is an Asian and global military power, the reach of the Indian military is restricted to the subcontinent and parts of the Indian Ocean.

Opening discussions on the LSA marks a major shift of India towards a formal military alliance with US imperialism. Already India is deeply integrated into the US “pivot” to Asia—Washington’s drive to economically and diplomatically isolate China and militarily encircle it. Now New Delhi is preparing to allow US planes and ships to use Indian facilities, bringing them in still closer range of China, India’s northern neighbour.

The US has been pressing India to sign on to the LSA since the George W. Bush administration signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2006. While the UPA held talks with the US on the LSA, it ultimately balked at signing on, because of concerns that it would imperil India’s “strategic autonomy” and rile China.

Because the throwing open of Indian facilities to the US military is a highly sensitive and contentious issue, the BJP government has made no formal announcement that it is discussing with Washington ratifying the LSA. However, the Indian government has not denied the media reports.

Quoting from an unnamed “senior (Indian) defence official involved” in the negotiations, the Chennai-basedHindureported on December 26 that the LSA was discussed during Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s December 7-10 visit to the US.

In a statement that underscores the huge import of India agreeing to open its military facilities to the US, theHinduwent on to say that the official saw no serious obstacle to New Delhi soon reaching agreement with the US on the LSA. “There is only one concern,” he then declared. “What happens in the case of war?”

The official added that India is seeking “clarifications” as to how the LSA would be applied in the event that India did not support a US military action. Saying perhaps more than he intended to about the aggressive character of US imperialism, the unnamed senior official said New Delhi did not want to be legally obliged to “extend support for war with friendly countries.”

He suggested that a “compromise” could be found through the inclusion of language stipulating that in the event of war India could determine on a case-by-case basis whether the LTA’s terms would remain unchanged, suspended or modified.

The inclusion of such language would be in keeping with India’s policy of integrating itself ever-more fully into the US’s strategic offensive against China while maintaining the pretence of Indian “strategic autonomy.”

It would help counter domestic opposition to an enhanced military-security partnership with the US. Among India’s workers and toilers there is widespread hostility to US imperialism, which they rightly identify with war and oppression. Sections of India’s political and military establishment are for their own reasons opposed to aligning more closely with Washington, both because of its impact on relations with China and because the US has a long history of bullying and threatening India.

The US, for its part, is anxious to finalize the LSA, which it views as an important piece in its long-term strategy of drawing the Indian military into ever closer ties with the Pentagon, including making it dependent on US weapons and weapon systems.

In an interview with theIndian Express, a Pentagon official indicated that Washington is pleased with the manner in which the negotiations are proceeding. TheExpressreport paraphrased the official as saying, “Parrikar has shown an open mind on signing the LSA,” and that the US is “hopeful” two related agreements that the US views as “foundational” to developing a full military partnership with India “will follow.”

The two other “foundational agreements” are the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA). These agreements, which are a standard part of the US’ military alliances, are meant to facilitate and promote inter-military “communications interoperability” and “security.”

According to the same defence official who spoke to theHindu, they would involve “giving the US access to India’s encrypted systems,” a condition that has caused India’s armed forces to voice “reservations.”

A.K. Antony, the UPA government’s defence minister from 2006 to 2014, ultimately came to oppose the CISMOA and BECA, as well as the LSA, because, reports theIndian Express, he “believed that signing the agreements would grant the US military unencumbered access to Indian military installations and compromise sensitive data.”

Separately, the US is pushing, under the Indo-US Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), for India to enter into co-production and co-development projects with the Pentagon and US arms manufacturers.

However, US officials have told their Indian counterparts that if India has not agreed to the terms of the CISMOA and BECA it will “at a certain point” prove an obstacle to expanding the co-manufacture and development of high technology weapons systems.

Under the previous UPA government, India became a “global strategic partner” of the US, the Indian military became the Pentagon’s most frequent partner in joint exercises, and the US displaced Russia as India’s largest weapons supplier.

The BJP, during its 20 months in office, has tilted India still more pronouncedly toward Washington, including forging closer military-security ties with the US’ most important Indo-Pacific allies, Japan and Australia.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made Obama the first US president to be the guest of honour at India’s annual Republic Day celebrations. At the conclusion of Obama’s January 2015 visit to Delhi, he and Modi issued a “US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean,” which, to Washington’s delight, included US-drafted language concerning the conflict between the US and its allies and China in the South China Sea.

In September, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her US counterpart John Kerry announced that the US and Indian militaries will cooperate in “peacekeeping capacity building” with “a focus on training” troops from African countries for UN peacekeeping missions. While in the past there has been ad hoc cooperation between the Indian and US militaries in providing disaster relief, this agreement represents the first time they will be collaborating in an overseas military operation, working together to fashion the military forces to be used in policing and imposing by force of arms imperialist-sponsored UN peacekeeping missions.

Especially important has been the Modi government’s embrace of trilateral Indo-US-Japanese military-security cooperation, something the previous UPA government drew back from after China voiced strong opposition.

Last September, Swaraj met with Kerry and Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida in the inaugural meeting of the US-Japan-India Trilateral Ministerial Dialogue. Soon after it was revealed that the annual bilateral Indo-US “Malabar” naval exercise would henceforth have a third permanent member, Japan.

Parrikar’s visit was the first by an Indian defence minister to the US since 2008. During the same period, there were six visits to India by the US defence secretary, an indication of the Pentagon’s push to integrate India into its provocations and war planning against China.

Symbolizing the deepening military-security ties between the two countries, Parrikar started his US tour by visiting the US Pacific Command (PACOM) in Hawaii. Led by US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, he toured the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, one of the US’ nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, becoming the first Indian defence minister to ever tour a US aircraft carrier.

The Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPM, has issued a statement expressing concerns over the BJP’s negotiations with the US over the LSA and the two related military cooperation agreements. A party that is thoroughly integrated into the Indian bourgeoisie, the CPM propped up the Congress-led UPA government for four years, including as it forged India’s strategic partnership with US imperialism.

The CPM opposes the LSA, from the standpoint of the Indian ruling elite’s national interests, not as part of the struggle to develop a working class-led revolutionary opposition to imperialism and imperialist war. A recent editorial in the CPM organPeople’s Democracyurged the BJP government to “not sign these agreements which will limit India’s sovereignty, impair its strategic autonomy and make India a subordinate military ally of the United States.”

In line with this, the CPM promotes the reactionary illusion that the Indian bourgeoisie, the UN and a “multi-polar world” can serve as a progressive counterweight to US imperialism.

 

[Kinetic]

Bogus, such refuelling s are happening for last many decades.

 

[T-72M1]

Opening discussions on the LSA marks a major shift of India towards a formal military alliance with US imperialism.

.
and that's exactly where I stopped reading.

I know you wont answer but why no proper link provided, @kahonapyarhai ?

India in talks to open ports, bases to US military - World Socialist Web Site

 

[dadeechi]

.
and that's exactly where I stopped reading.

I know you wont answer but why no proper link provided, @kahonapyarhai ?

India in talks to open ports, bases to US military - World Socialist Web Site

Bogus, such refuelling s are happening for last many decades.

We cannot blame @kahonapyarhai on this.

The news of India planning to sign the agreements is true but how different parties project it as a success or a sell out is a different matter.

@Abingdonboy @PARIKRAMA @knight11

==================================================================================

The only remaining concern is ‘What happens in the case of war?’
Three major military pacts which could elevate Indo-U.S. relations to a new strategic level are being pursued afresh under the Narendra Modi regime after being shelved under the UPA government due to political compulsions.
Of these, both sides are one step short of reaching an understanding on the Logistic Support Agreement (LSA), which gives U.S. forces access to Indian bases for logistics support and vice versa.
Foundational basis
The three “foundational agreements” guide U.S. high technology sales to other countries.
In addition to the LSA, these include Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA).
A senior defence official involved in the discussions told The Hindu that the issue had been discussed during Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s recent visit to the U.S. and as far as the LSA is concerned it is possible to reach an agreement and India has only one concern for which it sought a clarification from the U.S. “As for LSA there is only one concern. What happens in the case of war?” he said.
Clarifications
“We do not support some actions and do not want to be part of it. Also we will not extend support for war with friendly countries. We asked the U.S. clarifications on how to deal with it,” he said. It could be done on a case by case basis.
On the other two agreements the CISMOA and BECA, however, India has deeper concerns as it involves giving the U.S. access to India’s encrypted systems. Indian armed forces have expressed reservations in this regard.
“We share multi-country platforms and certain information cannot be shared. So we have concerns as each word in the text can make a difference,” the official noted.
Revised draft
India has asked the U.S. to submit a revised draft of the agreements which would then be studied in detail. “It should be on an equal footing,” the official added.
With the government embarking on joint development and production projects for high technology weapons under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI), the U.S. has been pressing for a rethink on the issue.
While the Indian and the U.S. officials maintain that the DTTI cooperation is different from the foundational agreements, a senior State Department official Kenneth Handelman, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Defence Trade Controls) had in the past said, “DTTI has progressed in the absence of the foundational agreements but DTTI is a vehicle for much broader security relationship… At some point the foundational agreements are going to be an issue…”
U.S. officials had underscored on several occasions that these agreements are an administrative arrangement for sharing certain encrypted communications and taking forward high technology development in future, the objective of the DTTI.


India and U.S. inch closer to deal on logistics support - The Hindu



The outcome of Indian defence minister Manohar Parrikar's recent visit to the US to meet with his counterpart Ashton Carter has met with approval from all corners. Even critics of the Narendra Modi government were somewhat muted for once, as several columns reported that the agenda for the visit indicated a shift in Indian foreign policy from style to substance. Two projects critical to Indian defence modernisation — the development of jet engines and aircraft carrier technology, have received greater impetus under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI).
Calling the US-India relationship an anchor of global security, Carter expressed satisfaction with the new pace of defence cooperation between the two states has taken. "We've done so much more in the last year, probably than we've done in the 10 years before that," said Carter, adding, "And I'm guessing that in the next 10 months, we will do yet again more than we've done in the last year."
The United States' approach to India underwent a sea change during the presidency of George W Bush. Although the terrorist attacks of 11 September, 2001 would end up absorbing much of the administration's energy, Bush and his team had come to office with the aim of curbing the rise of China. The White House moved from the previous regime's view of China as a strategic partner to one where the Asian giant was a strategic competitor.
The neo-conservative world view, as David Frum, speechwriter for Bush, later explained, sought close ties with India and a pragmatic relationship with China that combined economic engagement with military containment. Part of the US' strategy was to make India a part of the international system and midwife its rise as a counterbalance to China. The India-US nuclear deal was part of that plan, as was the DTTI. As Philip Zelikow, a counselor for the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had said, the goal was "to help India become a major world power in the 21st Century".

File image of US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter and Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. PTI
From the US point of view, however, defence relations could have developed much quicker had India accepted what the Pentagon calls "foundational agreements". These pacts, typical military alphabet soups like the LSA (Logistics Sharing Agreement), Cismoa (Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement), and BECA (Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation), facilitate military-to-military cooperation primarily at a tactical level, although they can be developed further into strategic cooperation.
The LSA, for example, allows the navies and air forces of each country to share each other's facilities for berthing and refueling without making payments each time; instead, accounts would be settled periodically. The LSA also negotiates several practices that are presently decided upon on a case-by-case basis such as the pre-positioning of military materiel in each other's countries (Cooperative Security Location — CSL), playing host during exercises, and permitting operations of the other in-country. The LSA is similar to the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that the United States has with over 75 countries, including its Nato partners and Sri Lanka in India's own neighbourhood.

Similarly, Cismoa allows interoperability of Indian and US equipment. For example, if Indian troops wish to call in a US airstrike at a certain location, or if US Special Forces are "lighting up" a target for a precision munitions strike by an Indian bomber, their hardware, which is normally encrypted, must be able to communicate with each other to relay information accurately and quickly. In a crowded theatre of operations that nowadays involves non-state actors, drones, improvised explosive devices (IED), coalition militaries and electronic warfare, spectrum management is crucial.
Admittedly, the Indian Navy has been able to operate the Boeing P-8I Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft without the advanced communications equipment that would be available had India signed the Cismoa. The gaps were filled with indigenous electronic equipment that did not diminish the aircraft's capabilities. However, in a multi-nation environment, be it during a humanitarian relief mission or anti-piracy operations, these gaps would have been felt acutely.
The purpose of BECA is to facilitate the exchange of geospatial information between governments for military as well as civilian use. It includes maps, charts, satellite imagery, geodetic, geophysical, geomagnetic, and gravity data. One practical application of this for the military is that aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster III and the C-130 Hercules can fly very close to the ground and evade enemy radar; another is the improved accuracy of munitions. India cannot rely on foreign global positioning system in times of war and has therefore developed its own Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System. However, the coverage of this system is yet limited and geospatial data from the United States can improve its performance. The civilian application of geospatial data can contribute to infrastructural and other requirements as well.
The United States' eagerness for closer ties with India is plain. Bush Junior made that very clear, as did Wikileaks in a collection of cables that expressed Washington's priorities in the Indo-Pacific region and suggestions on how to achieve them. As the US Embassy in New Delhi wrote to the under-secretary for defence, Michelle Flournoy, in October 2009, the way forward lies in “nudging India to expand their commitments by signing the foundational agreements and by moving forward with military sales (which) will provide opportunities for a sustained relationship far more robust than exercises and exchanges. If we can continue our trend of major military sales, we will cement a relationship for the next several decades with the most stable country in South Asia.”
India is not doing the United States a favour by signing the foundational documents and nor is the case vice versa.
What none of these agreements do is compel India to side with the United States in any conflict, allow Washington to permanently station troops on Indian soil yet under the jurisdiction of American courts (that would be the Status of Forces Agreement — SOFA), or permit hostile military action against other countries from bases in India. These agreements are also reciprocal, giving the Indian military access to American facilities around the world. This could come in particularly handy at Diego Garcia or Guam, for example, in anti-piracy or regional collective security operations. The sharing of supplies has not only a strategic argument, but an economic one as well: Indian forces can resupply at any US facility and pay back in kind when American forces travel through the Indian Ocean, an especially useful arrangement during extended wargames.
It is unlikely that the Indian side has not seen the material benefits of these agreements. Certainly, the Indian military can operate without subscribing to an American framework but doing so will drastically expand its capabilities until such a time as when Delhi develops its own defence network. When the subject of India signing on to the foundational agreements was first broached, several senior Indian military officials played down their importance, saying that the pacts make no difference to the Indian operational scope. Such opinions might be dismissed as being bound by political views of the time — non-alignment, and an intellectual inertia that was sold as pacifism.
However, with a new and more ambitious government in Delhi, the time might be ripe to conclude these agreements.
also see
India's equivocal response to the Pentagon's protocols does have a legitimate basis — a deep-rooted suspicion of the United States. For earlier generations, this was ideological: India eschewed the free market, embraced state socialism, and was in closer orbit to the Soviet Union diplomatically and militarily than it was to the West. For the younger generation, mistrust of Washington stems from what appears from Delhi as unwavering support of a hostile neighbour, Pakistan. Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Foggy Bottom sees Islamabad as a close non-Nato ally and supplies it with advanced military equipment that includes nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets.
The United States has also earned a reputation as an unreliable patron, ironically from both India and Pakistan. Foggy Bottom cut off arms supplies in 1965 as well as in 1971 when war broke out between India and Pakistan; in 1974 and in 1998, after India's nuclear tests, it became the subject of US sanctions. Delhi worries that if it relies too much on an American defence framework, it might find its options in a conflict circumscribed by US interests and worldview. More recently, Washington's ridiculous good Taliban/bad Taliban routine got no chuckles in Delhi.
Delhi's greater concern is that forging closer military-to-military relations with the United States may appear to other important powers, particularly Russia and China, as an Indo-American alliance. Given the proximity of these powers to India and an overt US desire to contain their power, Indian action might speak louder than Indian intentions and antagonise them into a firmer response. Indian accession to the treaties will certainly stir otherwise friendly waters with Russia and likely precipitate a reaction from China that India is not ready for yet. Russia is already flirting with the idea of weapons sales to Pakistan and seeing US warships in Vishakapatnam might tilt the scales unfavourably to India. These treacherous diplomatic waters must be navigated by the Indian Foreign Service, convincing India's partners that logistical cooperation with the United States would not hurt their interests.
It might even be worth considering expanding logistical support to Russian, Australian, or Japanese naval vessels at Indian bases. In the meantime, India might also consider the spate of weapons deals and joint military exercises it as had with the United States — there is no need for deals to divine which way the geopolitical winds are blowing.
In January this year, it was reported that Modi gave his officials a non-paper on the Pentagon's foundational agreements. It is a new India now, and the ambitions of the Modi government are substantially more than the timid considerations of the Congress regime. Delhi is striving to forge strong bonds around the Indian Ocean Rim as well as with Japan and contribute to regional security and stability. Its aims of taking a no-nonsense approach to its borders in the Northeast as well as the West demand better infrastructure, logistics, and hardware.
While there might have been no need for India to consider the Pentagon's pacts earlier, an India aspiring to fill the role of a regional power certainly does.
Modi's muscular foreign policy needs a defence doctrine to match, and loose coalitions are a healthy way to test the waters. As the subhashita advises:
न अभिशेको न संस्कार: सिम्हस्य क्रियते वने |
विक्रमार्जिता सत्वस्य स्वयमेव मृगेन्द्रता ||
(There is no official coronation ceremony held to declare lion king of jungle. He becomes king by his own attributes and heroic actions)

Growing India-US relations: New Delhi's defence doctrine must match its muscular foreign policy - Firstpost

 

[IndoUS]

Any govt wanting to sign this would be signing its own death warant. The public would chew them out no matter if it is BJP and Modi.

 

[T-72M1]

We cannot blame @kahonapyarhai on this.

sure, but my problem was with the far left source and how he tried to conceal it from appearing by not sharing the url.

I doubt you'll find many takers for a military alliance with the US, no less for one that might compromise our security within the 'nationalist' right either, just that I'm not in agreement with the left's irrational frothing at the mouth hatred for all things US.

 

[Imran Khan]

so finally sweet medicine of CISOMA ?

 

[dadeechi]

Any govt wanting to sign this would be signing its own death warant. The public would chew them out no matter if it is BJP and Modi.

The fact is people in India who really know the significance of such agreements or foreign policy issues in general are less than 1%.

Most of the population is either uneducated illiterates or educated illiterates.

The general population is more interested in movies, TV shows, Cricket or at worse in emotional issues like Ram Mandir, Beef ban, Jallikattu ban, growing Intolerance, caste politics etc.

Politicians does not need to fear about loosing the support either while accepting or rejecting such agreements.

sure, but my problem was with the far left source and how he tried to conceal it from appearing by not sharing the url.

I doubt you'll find many takers for a military alliance with the US, no less for one that might compromise our security within the 'nationalist' right either, just that I'm not in agreement with the left's irrational frothing at the mouth hatred for all things US.

Left would like India to surrender and be subservient to China. The less said about them the better.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

This article is dated 16th Jan 2016
The source of this article and our discussions here
India and US to talk on giving access to each other’s military bases and ports

posted by @sarjenprabhu

The topic was discussed in detail..
i myself commented on this there

 

[Sam.]

They use our ports and we use their ports - cooperation

They use our ports.- colonization

I approve of this.

 

[dadeechi]

They use our ports and we use their ports - cooperation

They use our ports.- colonization

I approve of this.

Agreements are always written in favor of the stronger party.

 

[Sam.]

Agreements are always written in favor of the stronger party.

Every agreement has expired date so till that time come become strong. Sometime you have to step back so you can jump.

 

[dadeechi]

Every agreement has expired date so till that time come become strong. Sometime you have to step back so you can jump.

Absolutely true. Couldn't agree more.

 

[SrNair]

Expect harassment of Indian women by U.S. soldiers as happens in Japan and South Korea. It might not happen in the few years after setting foot in India, but as they grow in confidence, so will their over-confidence and sense of invulnerability. I've already mentioned this that India should be wary of how far the U.S. incurs in their country. Everything they say and do is for their own express benefit. They don't fight their own wars without having another country as a shield.

India is not South Korea or Japan.We have communist and socialist parties in here .
If they touch our women next thing will be a mass protest in Parliament and kicking out of US soldiers and scrapping out of that deal .We already did that in diplomatic case and will do that again if we want.

 

[The Huskar]

India is the only country where LSA can be signed with least amount of long term resistance. Just another Indrani Mukherji type drama is more than enough to get the attention away from the general populace.But I personally feel this to be a mistake.We would be unnecessarily antagonising both Russia and Iran not to mention deviating from our time tested method of non alignment.