What's new

India, US and Saudi Arabia: The 'new' great game!

read post no 31 and answer .

Shove this in your 31 an article by a former Indian diplomat. Shows India is proxy and Pakistan is not

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 23, 2011

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad - Indian Punchline

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/afghan...oute-not-opened-official-5.html#ixzz1z1bSDU3k
 
. .
Shove this in your 31 an article by a former Indian diplomat. Shows India is proxy and Pakistan is not

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad


Francis Fukuyama wrote a sequel to his celebrated book The End of History and the Last Man (1992) no sooner than he realised that he was hopelessly wrong in his prediction that the global triumph of political and economic liberalism was at hand. He wrote: “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the crossing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western democracy as the final form of human government.” But in no time he realised his rush to judgment and he retracted with another book.

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.

Russia, of course, went on to prove our pundits completely wrong. Russia remerged as a global player and the evidence of it is today spread (and is poised to expand) all across global theatres — Libya, Syria, Iran, Central Asia, Afghanistan, etc.
Why I am underscoring all this is that I am strongly reminded of that sad chapter in the recent history of India’s foreign policy when I see the huge ‘psywar’ being let loose on Pakistan currently when that country too is at a crossroads with regard to its future policy directions in a highly volatile external enviornment.

In Pakistan’s case, the ‘psywar’ substitutes Russia with China. The US’s ‘Track II’ thesis is that China is hopelessly marooned in its own malaise so much so that it has no time, interest or resources to come to Pakistan’s aid, the two countries’ ‘all-weather friendship’ notwithstanding. Let me cull out two fine pieces of this ongoing ‘psywar’.

One is the lengthy article featured by America’s prestigious flag-carrier Foreign Affairs magazine in early December titled “China’s Pakistan conundrum”. Its argument is: ‘China will not simply bail out Pakistan with loans, investment, and aid, as those watching the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations seem to expect. China will pursue politics, security, and geopolitical advantage regardless of Islamabad’s preferences’. It puts forth the invidious argument that China’s real use for Pakistan is only to “box out New Delhi in Afghanistan and the broader region.”

Alongside the argument is the highly-tendentious vector that is beyond easy verification, namely, that US and China are increasingly ‘coordinating’ their policies toward Pakistan. Diplomacy is part dissimulation and we simply don’t know whether the US and China are even anywhere near beginning to ‘coordinate’ about ‘coordinating’ their regional policies in South Asia, especially with regard to Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The odds are that while the US and China may have some limited convergent interests, conceivably, their strategic interests are most certainly in sharp conflict.

A milder version of this frontal attack by US pundits on Pakistan’s existential dilemma appears in Michael Krepon’s article last week titled ‘Pakistan’s Patrons’, which, curiously, counsels Islamabad to follow India’s foreign-policy footsteps and make up with the US. Krepon literally suggests that the Pakistanis are living in a fool’s paradise.

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Thus, the visit by the Chinese delegation led by State Councilor, Dai Bingguo to Islamabad at this point in time assumes much significance. Dai is one of the highest-ranking figures in the Chinese foreign-policy establishment and the fact he is leading a delegation that includes of senior Chinese military officials is very significant. Dai is scheduled to meet not only Pakistan’s political leadership at the highest level but also army chief Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Obviously, Beijing is making a big point through the timing of this visit as well, which, incidentally, is taking place at a time of great uncertainties in Pakistan’s internal affairs. When it comes to relations with China, it must be assumed that Pakistan’s civil and military leaderships are together.

Dai doesn’t really have a US counterpart as he is ranked above the FM. Arguably, it would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton. If so, to what extent Dai ‘coordinated’ his proposed visit with Clinton will be of particular interest. The future of the US’s ‘psywar’ on Pakistan is at stake.

The big question is whether this would be Dai’s last major trip to South Asia, as he is a key member of President Hu Jintao’s team and China is moving into a period of transition at the leadership level. Dai’s visit to Delhi for the Special Representatives meet was called off at the last minute.
.

By M K Bhadrakumar – December 23, 2011

Dai Bingguo heading for Islamabad - Indian Punchline

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/afghan...oute-not-opened-official-5.html#ixzz1z1bSDU3k
read post no 31 carefully and try and answer it again logically :lol:
 
.
Stop getting flustered mate.. You'll have a stroke...

IPI pipeline: India,Pak sign pricing pact - Economic Times


Iran



:rofl:

Checked that article. The article is wrong in the first paragraph it sates the cost of IPI at over 7.2 or 7.4 billion that is incorrect that is the cost of TAPI. IP cost is just over a 1 billion. Then I noticed it was an Indian source. Now you know what the former Indian Judge said about you lot and your media?? Let me remind you:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/144176-most-indians-very-low-intellect-katju.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/139035-india-s-press-intellectually-poor-clueless.html

can I suggest you read other than India media so you do not get so easily owned :rofl:
 
.
when have nothing to debate old bookmarks and smilyes only option for elite trolls.
 
.
read post no 31 carefully and try and answer it again logically :lol:

Your answers are clear what do you want me to do?? Here have a nut I will quote from the above article

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.


Simply you are proxy

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Pakistan is not
 
. .
Who, the chinese bank??? read my post again - I talked about a certain chinese bank who backed off. China is offering a loan to Pakistan now...isn't it?

Stop being a remedial. This is the most up to date situation:


Russia to come up with formal response on IP gas line today


By Khalid Mustafa
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
From Print Edition

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will have today (Wednesday), in the two-day dialogue on energy issues, the formal response from Russia on laying down the Iran- Pakistan (IP) gas line which gets delayed because of Iran that is facing the international economic sanctions.



Iran is not only willing to provide $500 million but also agreed to provide 786 kilometres pipeline, gas compressors and block valves.



However, Pakistan is wooing China and Russia to play their role in constructing the pipeline to increase the scope of ownership of the pipeline to reduce the pressure of international economic curbs.



During the crucial parleys, Yury Sentyurin, Deputy Minister for Energy of Russian Federation, will head the 12-member Russian delegation, whereas Pakistan’s side will be headed by Secretary Petroleum and Natural Resources Ejaz Chaudhary.



Sources are claiming that there will be positive development in the expected Russian response on constructing the pipeline. During the talks at Moscow, Russia had given a go ahead signal to Pakistan for completing the project under a government-to-government arrangement, but at the same time Russian company sought the setting aside of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA)’s rules to complete the mega project for which international bidding is a must as per the PPRA.



It is pertinent to mention that China, which had earlier backtracked from being the financial adviser for laying down pipeline, had now shown willingness to become the EPCC (Engineering Procurement Construction and Commissioning) contractor, during the recent visit of President Asif Zaradri to Beijing.

Russia to come up with formal response on IP gas line today - thenews.com.pk
 
.
Your answers are clear what do you want me to do?? Here have a nut I will quote from the above article

However, unlike the celebrated American neocon thinker, Indian foreign policy thinkers who were heavily influenced by his 1992 thesis are yet to retract. The Indian discourses through the 1990s drew heavily from Fukuyama to throw overboard the scope for reinventing or reinterpreting ‘non-alignment’ in the post-Cold War setting and came to a rapid judgment that Russia belonged to the dustbin of history. Our discourses never really got updated despite Fukumaya’s own retraction.

Indeed, western commentators also fuelled the consequent sense of insecurity in Delhi through the 1990s by endorsing that India would never have a ‘Russia option’ again and Boris Yeltsin’s Russia itself was inexorably becoming an ‘ally’ of the west — and, therefore, what alternative is there for India but to take to the New American Century project? Remember the drama of the Bill Clinton administration arm-twisting Yeltsin not to give to India the cryogentic engines?

In sum, India got entrapped in a ‘unipolar predicament’. The best elucidation of this self-invited predicament has been the masterly work titled Crossing the Rubicon by Raja Mohan, which was of course widely acclaimed in the US. While releasing the book at a function in Delhi, the then National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra even admitted that India’s main foreign policy challenge was somehow to engage the US’s “attention”.


Simply you are proxy

The obvious thrust of this ‘psywar’ — strikingly similar to what India was subjected to in the 1990s — is that Pakistan has no option but to fall in line with the US regional strategies, as it has no real ‘China option’. The main difference between India and Pakistan is that the foreign policy elites in Islamabad — unlike their Indian counterparts — are not inclined to buy into the US argument with a willing suspension of disbelief. In a way, the Sino-Pakistan relationship is proving once again to be resilient. Pakistan is in no mood to get into a ‘unipolar predicament’, as the Indian elites willingly did in the 1990s.

Pakistan is not
read your post again and find a logical explanation of how signing a civil nuclear deal makes india a proxy of usa .( isn't it the same deal u guys cry for ? ).

india opts out of ipi because of lack of control of management in the areas in pakistan due to terrorist activities ,any country would not like to be dependent on that.
THIS IS WAT I ASKED .

ANSWER THIS.
 
.

Explain the relevance here??

THIS IS WAT I ASKED .

ANSWER THIS.

Yea that was your response to me asserting that India is a proxy. I have given you the strategy that is explained by a former Indian diplomat who should know more than both of us. Its not my problem you can not see the relevance.

In so far as the second part of your assertion I have already shown that if this was a concern then India would not have signed tapi which also just happens to go through Pakistan. have you not realised that yet lol
 
.
Checked that article. The article is wrong in the first paragraph it sates the cost of IPI at over 7.2 or 7.4 billion that is incorrect that is the cost of TAPI. IP cost is just over a 1 billion.

Genius, do you have a source for this $1 billion claim for IPI pipeline?? or is it also a figment of your imagination like most of your posts :)


Then I noticed it was an Indian source. Now you know what the former Indian Judge said about you lot and your media?? Let me remind you:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/144176-most-indians-very-low-intellect-katju.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/139035-india-s-press-intellectually-poor-clueless.html

can I suggest you read other than India media so you do not get so easily owned :rofl:

Now you are just throwing tantrums like a spoilt kid..Stay on the topic.. Else some Bharti will bring out links with world leaders calling Pakistan a terror state and Nawaz Sharif calling Pakistan a country with a reputation of a failed state..

So lets stick to the topic at hand
 
.
Stop being a remedial. This is the most up to date situation:


Russia to come up with formal response on IP gas line today


By Khalid Mustafa
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
From Print Edition

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan will have today (Wednesday), in the two-day dialogue on energy issues, the formal response from Russia on laying down the Iran- Pakistan (IP) gas line which gets delayed because of Iran that is facing the international economic sanctions.



Iran is not only willing to provide $500 million but also agreed to provide 786 kilometres pipeline, gas compressors and block valves.



However, Pakistan is wooing China and Russia to play their role in constructing the pipeline to increase the scope of ownership of the pipeline to reduce the pressure of international economic curbs.



During the crucial parleys, Yury Sentyurin, Deputy Minister for Energy of Russian Federation, will head the 12-member Russian delegation, whereas Pakistan’s side will be headed by Secretary Petroleum and Natural Resources Ejaz Chaudhary.



Sources are claiming that there will be positive development in the expected Russian response on constructing the pipeline. During the talks at Moscow, Russia had given a go ahead signal to Pakistan for completing the project under a government-to-government arrangement, but at the same time Russian company sought the setting aside of the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA)’s rules to complete the mega project for which international bidding is a must as per the PPRA.



It is pertinent to mention that China, which had earlier backtracked from being the financial adviser for laying down pipeline, had now shown willingness to become the EPCC (Engineering Procurement Construction and Commissioning) contractor, during the recent visit of President Asif Zaradri to Beijing.

Russia to come up with formal response on IP gas line today - thenews.com.pk

I am not talking about what's in store in the future - I said India had backed out for the same reason why Gazprom and the chinese bank backed out in the first place.
 
.
Yea that was your response to me asserting that India is a proxy. I have given you the strategy that is explained by a former Indian diplomat who should know more than both of us. Its not my problem you can not see the relevance.
Talking about Bhadrakumar nineties personal opinion over i asked you how signing a civilian nuke deal makes india a usa proxy for which your country cried for. u have comprehension problems ?

In so far as the second part of your assertion I have already shown that if this was a concern then India would not have signed tapi which also just happens to go through Pakistan. have you not realised that yet lol
Multiple countries are involved in it, did it materialized yet ?

http://www.rediff.com/news/special/tapi-pipeline-not-a-done-deal-yet/20120601.htm
 
.
Dont choke the kid guys, he will post more offtopic articles. He just wants to increase his post count.
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom