Indo USA ties are cooling Post Bush Era

[deckingraj]

well every country works in her best interest. if you go by this then there is no point of debating on anything.
all wat i mentioned were the reasons for this chill in relations. and lik the poster said that its bec of obama that thing have gone this way, i have tried to argue against it.

about the obsession.... as far as this term is concerned there is nothing to feel annoyed about. we hear this term being used by indian members everyday in one way or the other. and to find the answer of who is obsessed, you should look at the number of articles being published recently in indian media on the issue of increasing Pak US cooperation.

Please don't get me wrong....I was just trying to give you an impression about there is nothing like obsession..Neither Pakistan i obsessed with India nor vice-versa...If there is any obsession that we then that is to emulate China's economic success...I am sure Pakistanis might have same for India ...and yes every country works in their interests.....

Please note India never enjoyed very good relations with US...Our relations went sour in 1971 and then stayed more or less neutral...neither very good nor very bad...However Clinton and then Bush era changed it....Countries become very close...There was lot of warmth in the relationship....However with Obama in the picture this relationship seems to be a little numb than what people were expecting....

Anyways nothing is lost..Its all diplomacy and things keep fluctuating....

 

[deckingraj]

That is the Indian opinion, which favors a settlement based on the current territorial distribution between the two countries. The Pakistani position is that third party mediation is necessary precisely because one party to the dispute is comfortable with converting the status quo boundaries into the IB.

As you said its a different debate...Just one point if you look at various strings attached that is the only viable option....The sooner we realize this better for South Asia...

But my point was that Indian diplomacy on this issue, to prevent third party mediation, is acceptable, and not that third party mediation itself is acceptable - the latter is a different debate.

Yes we don't want any third party mediation because we think this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan....I don't see any harm is using diplomacy to ensure this...and so far we have succeeded in it...

This is precisely the attitude of entitlement and irrational dislike of Pakistan that India needs to discard. It is none of India's business to determine whether Pakistan is treated with 'parity' by other nations or not. How other nations deal with Pakistan is the concern of those nations and Pakistan - India has no business here.

Really then why Pakistan was quoting Indian NUclear Deal to clinch one for her??? Why she wanted to be treated on parity with India????

Your argument here is, as I said, indicative of an entitlement mentality of a spoiled brat, that does not want any one it disapproves of to obtain the benefits similar to those it has.

I have explained this part as well in Post 9.... You will do whatever to ensure your adversary has one less bullet than yours...Are you saying Pakistan did nothing to stop India clinching nuclear deal????

A civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan will be based upon negotiations between Pakistan and the concerned nations - what business does India have here? Whether the terms of such a deal are eventually more favorable or less favorable than the ones India obtains is Pakistan and the NSG member states concer

What biz have we here???? Amo you must be kidding....If it is what you said is than what was this??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4389924.ece

The re-hyphenation here is India's doing, out of a mentality that is obsessed with Pakistan (and not obsessed in a good manner either).

I have explained obsession part in post 9. Please refer to it and share your thoughts

 

[Peshwa]

That is the Indian opinion, which favors a settlement based on the current territorial distribution between the two countries. The Pakistani position is that third party mediation is necessary precisely because one party to the dispute is comfortable with converting the status quo boundaries into the IB.
But my point was that Indian diplomacy on this issue, to prevent third party mediation, is acceptable, and not that third party mediation itself is acceptable - the latter is a different debate.).

The highlighted part is one that spans a bigger discussion wrt the Kashmir issue and is a can of worms for this thread.....so Ill leave that out as a differing POV.

However as Ive mentioned earlier, it takes 2 to clap and third party mediation cannot be successful without India being party to it.....Hence I dont see it as a possibility....

This is precisely the attitude of entitlement and irrational dislike of Pakistan that India needs to discard. It is none of India's business to determine whether Pakistan is treated with 'parity' by other nations or not. How other nations deal with Pakistan is the concern of those nations and Pakistan - India has no business here.

Your argument here is, as I said, indicative of an entitlement mentality of a spoiled brat, that does not want any one it disapproves of to obtain the benefits similar to those it has.).

Well lets see, India has worked hard to keep a clean track record (esp wrt nuclear proliferation) same cannot be said of Pakistan....If the US wants to benefit by using India as a strategic counter weight to China, and be part of the future power matrix, they will offer us the nuclear deal and more.....
The fact that we are being compared to a country that is knee deep in proliferation is not something India is ready to tolerate....
Comparing India and Pak on the nuclear deal irks us for the same reason that Pakistan gets irritated over being called a "Failed state" such as a Somalia......because we are not!!!
You have your F-16s, we have our nuclear deals....and this really isnt about any supremacy issue....its about what we have done to achieve/reach this stage.....Why should we let you have an easy ride?

The above bolded part is quite hypocritical especially since Pakistan and Pakistani's have been throwing hissy fits about India's position in Afghanistan so much so that you've reached a point of blackmail to have US disinclude India from Afghanistan talks.....what business is it of Pakistan to be involved in our relationship with Afghanistan?...Pakistan has no business there either.....Why dont you apply the same standards there instead of sounding all high and mighty?

A civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan will be based upon negotiations between Pakistan and the concerned nations - what business does India have here? Whether the terms of such a deal are eventually more favorable or less favorable than the ones India obtains is Pakistan and the NSG member states concern.

The re-hyphenation here is India's doing, out of a mentality that is obsessed with Pakistan (and not obsessed in a good manner either).

You call it being obsessed, we call it being proactive.....

We can be called "drama queens", "cry babies" and whatever you want, but if we can block one less arms deals to Pakistan, means that we have that much advantage over you.....
Why do u think we would work to benefit you in anyway? Has Pakistan done the same?.....
Maybe open up trade routes to CAR, Afghanistan etc and then you can expect some sort of understanding from us over a nuclear deal with the US.....

But anyways, you're right.....If the US is going to offer a deal to Pak, there is very little India can do to "block" it, but we will make sure as hell that the cost-analysis for the US does not come out favorably......and the constant reminder of that is what we do when we "make a fuss" over Pakistani arms procurement

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As you said its a different debate...Just one point if you look at various strings attached that is the only viable option....The sooner we realize this better for South Asia...


Yes we don't want any third party mediation because we think this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan....I don't see any harm is using diplomacy to ensure this...and so far we have succeeded in it...

What India wants or doesn't want is irrelevant to the point I am making - I was just mentioning that India's diplomatic efforts to prevent third party mediation are acceptable and do not constitute 'hyphenation' of India and Pakistan, since j&K is already an internationally recognized territorial dispute.

Really then why Pakistan was quoting Indian NUclear Deal to clinch one for her??? Why she wanted to be treated on parity with India????

First off, Pakistan is not the one complaining about 'hyphenation', India is. Pakistan's position is that there should be no discrimination when it comes to international cooperation and sharing of technology and that such things should be done under defined guidelines rather than arbitrarily picking one nation over another.

I have explained this part as well in Post 9.... You will do whatever to ensure your adversary has one less bullet than yours...Are you saying Pakistan did nothing to stop India clinching nuclear deal????

What biz have we here???? Amo you must be kidding....If it is what you said is than what was this??

Pakistan warns that US-India nuclear deal could lead to new arms race - Times Online

I have explained obsession part in post 9. Please refer to it and share your thoughts

Here is a quote that explains Pakistan's position, from the article you posted, very well, “There should be a model agreement that could be signed with any country that meets the criteria. It should not be country-specific.”

Pakistan's position was that there should be no discrimination and arbitrary selection of who gets a waiver for civilian nuclear cooperation.

And 'one less bullet' does not apply here - Pakistan already has close to a hundred nuclear warheads, and has started a second plutonium production reactor and almost finished a third, at the minimum tripling its capacity of producing smaller and more powerful nuclear weapons.

A civilian nuclear agreement would not have boosted this capacity - India's opposition to this comes from the perception of 'status'. India does not want Pakistan to be, in essence, recognized by the international community as a nuclear weapons state and gain access to something only a handful of states do now.

BTW, India's opposition to a potential nuclear deal would fly in the face of what it has said in the past:

External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukerjee:

"India has indicated it would not mind the United States entering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, saying it believed every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

"We will like to encourage civil nuclear cooperation for peaceful use of nuclear energy," external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a press conference after signing the bilateral 123 agreement with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We believe every country has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he said when asked about Islamabad's demand for an India-like nuclear deal with the US.

India not against US-Pakistan N-deal: Pranab - India - The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The highlighted part is one that spans a bigger discussion wrt the Kashmir issue and is a can of worms for this thread.....so Ill leave that out as a differing POV.

However as Ive mentioned earlier, it takes 2 to clap and third party mediation cannot be successful without India being party to it.....Hence I dont see it as a possibility....

See my response to DR above.

Well lets see, India has worked hard to keep a clean track record (esp wrt nuclear proliferation) same cannot be said of Pakistan....If the US wants to benefit by using India as a strategic counter weight to China, and be part of the future power matrix, they will offer us the nuclear deal and more.....
The fact that we are being compared to a country that is knee deep in proliferation is not something India is ready to tolerate....
Comparing India and Pak on the nuclear deal irks us for the same reason that Pakistan gets irritated over being called a "Failed state" such as a Somalia......because we are not!!!
You have your F-16s, we have our nuclear deals....and this really isnt about any supremacy issue....its about what we have done to achieve/reach this stage.....Why should we let you have an easy ride?

Since Pakistan is not looking at cooperation with India on the civilian nuclear technology front, it is none of India's business what criteria the NSG puts in place, so long as it is fair criteria. Unfortunately, India is advocating unfair criteria and discrimination.


As far as proliferation goes, that argument is bunk since by that yardstick nations like the Netherlands, France, Germany and China should by no means be included in the NSG and allowed access to civilian nuclear technology since they (or entities from those nations) were complicit in the proliferation of nuclear technology to other nations, Israel and Pakistan both being examples of that.

If limited proliferation by an individual such as AQ Khan, that resulted in no great increase in nuclear capacity by any of the nations that were proliferated to, can be used to deny Pakistan nuclear technology, then how can nations such as the ones mentioned above that were the source, according to the West and India, of a FUNCTIONING Pakistani and Israeli nuclear weapons program not also be denied access?

What should be looked at is current activity on the proliferation front, and on that count Pakistan has dismantled the AQ Khan network and set up comprehensive command and control systems for security and preventing future proliferation. These changes and continuity in certain key sectors should be more than enough to form the basis for negotiations towards civilian nuclear cooperation, and hopefully that is what we will see in the coming years.

The above bolded part is quite hypocritical especially since Pakistan and Pakistani's have been throwing hissy fits about India's position in Afghanistan so much so that you've reached a point of blackmail to have US disinclude India from Afghanistan talks.....what business is it of Pakistan to be involved in our relationship with Afghanistan?...Pakistan has no business there either.....Why dont you apply the same standards there instead of sounding all high and mighty?

First, as I pointed out to Deckingraj, it is India that is complaining about 'hyphenation', not Pakistan. Secondly, as FM Qureishi pointed out, Pakistan has far greater interests in Afghanistan due to a variety of factors than India ever will, and that therefore makes Pakistani interests in Afghanistan a legitimate cause for lobbying on Pakistan's behalf.

You call it being obsessed, we call it being proactive.....

We can be called "drama queens", "cry babies" and whatever you want, but if we can block one less arms deals to Pakistan, means that we have that much advantage over you.....
Why do u think we would work to benefit you in anyway? Has Pakistan done the same?.....
Maybe open up trade routes to CAR, Afghanistan etc and then you can expect some sort of understanding from us over a nuclear deal with the US.....

Since the nuclear deal is not with India, Pakistan has to do nothing on any front to appease India. Transit rights etc. will be dealt with bilaterally and with a bilateral quid pro quo on other issues.

But anyways, you're right.....If the US is going to offer a deal to Pak, there is very little India can do to "block" it, but we will make sure as hell that the cost-analysis for the US does not come out favorably......

You can do whatever you like, I am just pointing out that Indian obsession with Pakistan and interference in XYZ-Pakistan affairs means that it is India that is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan, and not the XYZ nation, as is the charge leveled against the US in this case.

When India stops obsessing over Pakistan and interfering in Pakistan's international relations with other nations, the hyphenation will stop.

 

[Peshwa]

Here is a quote that explains Pakistan's position, from the article you posted, very well, “There should be a model agreement that could be signed with any country that meets the criteria. It should not be country-specific.”

Pakistan's position was that there should be no discrimination and arbitrary selection of who gets a waiver for civilian nuclear cooperation.

So if Pakistan feels there should be standard for all countries and that nuclear waiver should not be "country specific", then shouldnt the country voicing these opinions also follow international standards wrt nuclear proliferation?
In this case, it is not India accusing Pakistan of proliferation, but its more the worlds opinion.....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So if Pakistan feels there should be standard for all countries and that nuclear waiver should not be "country specific", then shouldnt the country voicing these opinions also follow international standards wrt nuclear proliferation?
In this case, it is not India accusing Pakistan of proliferation, but its more the worlds opinion.....

Pakistan is not a signatory to the NPT, and if ' no non-proliferation', EVER were to be a standard for civilian nuclear cooperation, then the nations I mentioned above that are already a part of the NSG would have to be kicked out.

Since that is not feasible, the only option left is to see what the current practices of nations looking to get NSG waivers is, and on that count Pakistan has done a lot.

 

[Peshwa]

Since Pakistan is not looking at cooperation with India on the civilian nuclear technology front, it is none of India's business what criteria the NSG puts in place, so long as it is fair criteria. Unfortunately, India is advocating unfair criteria and discrimination.

Discrimination is a must.....
India has worked hard to prevent proliferation.....
Dont you think India could have sold nuclear secrets to NKorea to secure missile technology?......We made the effort, we followed principles and acted as a responsible nation......Hence we reap the benefits.....

Secondly and most importantly, Indian concerns are legitimate since there is a major Jihadi network in your country that would love to get its hands on a stockpile of nuclear fuel.....With an unstable govt and political scenario.....this can become a nightmare scenario especially in light of the fact that "non state" actors that were/are possibly sheltered by Pakistan can use these against India.....

As far as proliferation goes, that argument is bunk since by that yardstick nations like the Netherlands, France, Germany and China should by no means be included in the NSG and allowed access to civilian nuclear technology since they (or entities from those nations) were complicit in the proliferation of nuclear technology to other nations, Israel and Pakistan both being examples of that.

If limited proliferation by an individual such as AQ Khan, that resulted in no great increase in nuclear capacity by any of the nations that were proliferated to, can be used to deny Pakistan nuclear technology, then how can nations such as the ones mentioned above that were the source, according to the West and India, of a FUNCTIONING Pakistani and Israeli nuclear weapons program not also be denied access?

All countries you have mentioned barring Israel are signatories of the NPT, with stable economies, stable governments and most importantly havent been referred to as the "epicenter of terrorism"......
In what basis is Pakistan comparable to any nation in that list?
Secondly, without a clean track record, the only way that Pakistan should be allowed to be included in this group is if they sign the NPT....which has not happened....again....There cant be a guarantee with Pakistan...
Thirdly, marred with spans of time with dictatorship and a very powerful military and Intelligence agencies playing proxy games and political chess, it is risky to consider Pakistan as a favorable candidtate lest a new dictator decide to use the nuclear fuel for purposes other than nuclear energy....

Again...one cannot compare the countries mentioned above with Pakistan....and being in neighborhood with Indian and an active enemy of India....It is most definitely an Indian concern....and a legitimate one to say the least....

PS: Israel does not have a nuclear deal as far as I knw....and they are the Most Favored Nation for the US

What should be looked at is current activity on the proliferation front, and on that count Pakistan has dismantled the AQ Khan network and set up comprehensive command and control systems for security and preventing future proliferation. These changes and continuity in certain key sectors should be more than enough to form the basis for negotiations towards civilian nuclear cooperation, and hopefully that is what we will see in the coming years.

Lets see how legitimate this is.....

Lets hope Pakistan has let Pakistan has left Proliferation behind unlike its its support for "Non state actors" or the Taliban......

I wish you Pakistan the best....

First, as I pointed out to Deckingraj, it is India that is complaining about 'hyphenation', not Pakistan. Secondly, as FM Qureishi pointed out, Pakistan has far greater interests in Afghanistan due to a variety of factors than India ever will, and that therefore makes Pakistani interests in Afghanistan a legitimate cause for lobbying on Pakistan's behalf.

India's interests in Afghanistan are no concern of Pakistan....You should worry about your plate and let us worry about ours.......

Interfering in our relationship with Afg is the same as us interfering in any deal Pak has with a foreign nation.....

And again none of Paks business.....so Pakistan should be ready to find our nose in their affairs as well....tit-for tat

Since the nuclear deal is not with India, Pakistan has to do nothing on any front to appease India. Transit rights etc. will be dealt with bilaterally and with a bilateral quid pro quo on other issues.

Only meant to point why we wouldnt support such a deal when there is obviously no advantage for us to do so....Hence opposing it vociferously makes sense....

You can do whatever you like, I am just pointing out that Indian obsession with Pakistan and interference in XYZ-Pakistan affairs means that it is India that is 'hyphenating' India and Pakistan, and not the XYZ nation, as is the charge leveled against the US in this case.

When India stops obsessing over Pakistan and interfering in Pakistan's international relations with other nations, the hyphenation will stop.

Obsessing is better exemplified when a nation cries over the fact that its neighbor with a track record far superior to its own is given a deal and wants the same because it feels like it deserves the same when it has earned nothing to do be granted so......obsession becomes worse when this nation blackmails to have its way......

 

[KeenGuy]

Obama is my hero

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Discrimination is a must.....
India has worked hard to prevent proliferation.....
Dont you think India could have sold nuclear secrets to NKorea to secure missile technology?......We made the effort, we followed principles and acted as a responsible nation......Hence we reap the benefits.....

Secondly and most importantly, Indian concerns are legitimate since there is a major Jihadi network in your country that would love to get its hands on a stockpile of nuclear fuel.....With an unstable govt and political scenario.....this can become a nightmare scenario especially in light of the fact that "non state" actors that were/are possibly sheltered by Pakistan can use these against India.....

Again, since India is not an NSG member none of this is her concern since she is not the one being approached for technological cooperation. And you completely glossed over my point about the fact that many of the nations who are part of the NSG have also either proliferated or had entities proliferate to other nations, so the argument of 'past proliferation' does not fly since these other nations should also be kicked out in that case. What counts is current actions and policies to prevent proliferation.

As for political stability and security, again, that is an issue for the NSG to decide. Needless to say, Pakistan has been operating nuclear reactors and running the entire fuel cycle process for decades now, in the midst of political instability, and has not had any issue with terrorists or 'non-state actors' compromising that security - so an invalid protestation, though a valid concern.

All countries you have mentioned barring Israel are signatories of the NPT, with stable economies, stable governments and most importantly havent been referred to as the "epicenter of terrorism"......
In what basis is Pakistan comparable to any nation in that list?
Secondly, without a clean track record, the only way that Pakistan should be allowed to be included in this group is if they sign the NPT....which has not happened....again....There cant be a guarantee with Pakistan...
Thirdly, marred with spans of time with dictatorship and a very powerful military and Intelligence agencies playing proxy games and political chess, it is risky to consider Pakistan as a favorable candidtate lest a new dictator decide to use the nuclear fuel for purposes other than nuclear energy....

You have shifted the goal posts - earlier your argument was based on 'proliferation', now that it has been pointed out that many of the NSG member states are also guilty of proliferation, you seek to include other issues.

In terms of 'stable governments' -a valid requirement, and one that can be addressed over time and likely will be. References to 'epicenter of terrorism' have little value beyond sensationalist media headlines. Nonetheless, terrorism is an issue that is being successfully dealt with.

The argument of 'military dictator use nuclear fuel for purposes other than nuclear energy' is nothing but a canard made out of ignorance of Pakistan's track record with IAEA safeguards. Pakistan already produces its own nuclear fuel and has significant Uranium reserves. Pakistan has also operated the KANUPP for decades now, under IAEA safeguards, and under political upheaval, and not touched an ounce of the spent fuel, despite the fact that it could have used it to significantly increase its nuclear weapons stockpile.

Pakistan is also well on the way to starting its third heavy water reactor to produce Plutonium and Tritium for its nuclear weapons program, and so has no incentive to 'steal fuel' from safeguarded reactors.

Again...one cannot compare the countries mentioned above with Pakistan....and being in neighborhood with Indian and an active enemy of India....It is most definitely an Indian concern....and a legitimate one to say the least....

PS: Israel does not have a nuclear deal as far as I knw....and they are the Most Favored Nation for the US

It is no concern of India's since potential civilian nuclear cooperation falls under the ambit of power generation, and therefore does not pose a military threat to India.

Lets see how legitimate this is.....

The processes and controls to prevent proliferation have been in place for several years now - one can already see how 'legitimate' these steps are.

India's interests in Afghanistan are no concern of Pakistan....You should worry about your plate and let us worry about ours.......

Interfering in our relationship with Afg is the same as us interfering in any deal Pak has with a foreign nation.....

And again none of Paks business.....so Pakistan should be ready to find our nose in their affairs as well....tit-for tat

Your interests are indeed no concern of ours, but since we have significant interests of our own in Afghanistan, far greater than India's, Pakistani lobbying to secure those interests, whether at the expense of India or not, is legitimate. Peaceful nuclear cooperation with other nations for serving Pakistan's energy needs is not analogous to the Afghan situation and does not impact India, other than to irk it since it wants to treat Pakistan like lower castes are treated in Indian society.

Only meant to point why we wouldnt support such a deal when there is obviously no advantage for us to do so....Hence opposing it vociferously makes sense....

The approval or disapproval of the NSG has no bearing on India, other than to irk it since it wants to deny Pakistan international legitimacy as a nuclear weapons state. Pakistan already has weapons, an NSG exemption will not change that. Pakistan is already accelerating and expanding its nuclear weapons program, and NSG exemption will not change that, other than to perhaps encourage Pakistan to agree to a moratorium on fissile material production and slow down its weapons expansion program.

Obsessing is better exemplified when a nation cries over the fact that its neighbor with a track record far superior to its own is given a deal and wants the same because it feels like it deserves the same when it has earned nothing to do be granted so......obsession becomes worse when this nation blackmails to have its way......

There is nothing wrong with fighting against discriminatory treatment. Perhaps you consider denial of opportunity to arbitrarily selected few becasue of the caste system prevalent in India that similarly seeks to discriminate against some.

Pakistan has done plenty, and will continue to focus on doing what is needed to obtain an NSG waiver. The media, specifically the Indian media, has created this hype of Pakistan somehow expecting the US to announce a string of nuclear plants during the current dialog. Pakistan understands completely that it has to assuage NSG ember concerns on proliferation controls and political stability, but to assuage concerns there needs to be a dialog, and that is what we have at this point with the most influential member of the NSG.

What is unacceptable is an open ended moratorium on granting Pakistan an NSG waiver - there needs to be a set of criteria than needs to be satisfied, and it should not shift from one nation to the next. Pakistan understands the NSG's concerns over proliferation and political stability. It has already acted on the former and will continue to work on the latter, and at a reasonable point in the future we expect the NSG to make a determination on whether concerns on both those issues have been addressed.

 

[Pride]

Has an outsider looking in i,m getting the impression that the huge work done in the last 10 years by Clinton And bush administration with INDIA is beginning to cool under the NEW OBAMA govt.

The single biggest trick the USA played to warm INDIA and begin to end decades of MISTRUST was their DEHYPHANTION of India and Pakistan.

In other words treat INDIA and Pakistan HAS 2 SEPERATE NATIONS WITH DIFFERENT aspirations different goals NOT has one SOUTH ASIA...

Bush wanted to make INDIA a majot strategic partner has a counterweight to the new SUPER POWER in the making CHINA.

Fearing CHINA massive GDP and future military might BUSH wanted Japan Korea & India 3 regional powers as back up both economically and paper military nos as a encirclement of China.

OBAMA

has ripped this up

1. Obama sees engaging CHINA as the no1 PRIORITY not encirclemenment as best way to tackle china. WIN THEIR TRUST make them equal.

2. He sees Pakistan as crucial ally on WOT. and feels local south Asian issues ie Water or Kashmir as seconary to USA interests first.

3. He feels as no encirclement of china is needed AND THAT SOUTH ASIA and policy in this area must be the same for both India & Pakistan.

I read indian newspapers and listen to politicians I THINK the indians are beginning to go cold on USA TOO

I moreover see this strategy change after Obama is much more ripple effect of economic slowdown, which forced US to think about the stance it wants to take..

The earlier world policing era during Bush has to be end as there is lot much has gone during Iraq and Afghanistan war.. Tune of Obama changed after recession ( may be Nobel prize effect) to be friendly with all nations of world and be friendly to everyone ( congratulating Iran and trip to China was an example)..

US is having a tough time under Obama administration as there is desperation from govt to call army from Afghanistan/Iraq but they are not getting any substitute to US army.. when they found India is interested in that role and can be substituted.. then they found issue with old ally Pakistan on WoT .. As Pak sees it a problem from India to cover them from both side.. When Obama asked China to interfere in South Asia then India irked on the same... Hence India and Pakistan got one message clear to get profit from US for its favor ( Pak gets defence equipment, India gets civil nuclear deal and economic relation).. while China focused on its traditional way to enhance themselves for next superpower rather than meddling in US affairs.. Hence I see US is sort of isolated from Asian countries not vice versa...

 

[naved_kam]

Has an outsider looking in i,m getting the impression that the huge work done in the last 10 years by Clinton And bush administration with INDIA is beginning to cool under the NEW OBAMA govt.

The single biggest trick the USA played to warm INDIA and begin to end decades of MISTRUST was their DEHYPHANTION of India and Pakistan.

In other words treat INDIA and Pakistan HAS 2 SEPERATE NATIONS WITH DIFFERENT aspirations different goals NOT has one SOUTH ASIA...

Bush wanted to make INDIA a majot strategic partner has a counterweight to the new SUPER POWER in the making CHINA.

Fearing CHINA massive GDP and future military might BUSH wanted Japan Korea & India 3 regional powers as back up both economically and paper military nos as a encirclement of China.

OBAMA

has ripped this up

1. Obama sees engaging CHINA as the no1 PRIORITY not encirclemenment as best way to tackle china. WIN THEIR TRUST make them equal.

2. He sees Pakistan as crucial ally on WOT. and feels local south Asian issues ie Water or Kashmir as seconary to USA interests first.

3. He feels as no encirclement of china is needed AND THAT SOUTH ASIA and policy in this area must be the same for both India & Pakistan.

I read indian newspapers and listen to politicians I THINK the indians are beginning to go cold on USA TOO

The fickle nature of the foreign and domestic policy progression of the Obama administation is very evident via its China policy = Accepting one China while also selling arms to Taiwan, Middle East policy = not being able to take sides in the Arab Israel land dispute, Russia policy = Cajoling the Russians while still not be able to get them to talk the same language on Iran, managing the relationship with the latin American countries, Iran policy = trying to convince the Arabs of the hard stance but not being able to do anything worthwhile to cease the Iranian nuclear agenda and so on and so forth......

It happens every few decades with the U.S policy makers that they run themselves up to a wall. Happened in the Korea's war and then happened in Vietnam again and then happend in Afganistan. The only huge miscalculation that the U.S made this time was getting in to Iraq at the same time before finishing the job in Afganistan and of course the ripple recession from Katrina in to U.S and then the whole world did not help anything at all w.r.t U.S policy makers.

However, it is to their credit (and also largely due to their head start over the rest of the world) that they get back everytime to head the table in the comity of nations of our world. But the fundamentals of the U.S business and foreign policy have always remained the same over the years. After every debacle, they start looking more inwards and less outwards. That is exactly what is happening currently with som of the fine reforms that Obama administration have pushed through and the growing socialistic undercurrent in his employment and social policies.

So I would not call this less intense engagement with India by the U.S as a slowdown in the relationship. In fact, considering the situation that U.S is in currrently this change of engagement with Pakistan from do more to - I will pay you for the war - was to be expected and could not have come sooner. The only good thing with India and U.S relationship has been that there has never been a client - master scenario. Both have been together with their own interests upfront so that helps in developing a meaningful and long lasting and mutually beneficial relationship.

Both the countries know the gains that come with engaging each other constructively and to the benefit of each other. India gains economically, politically, technologically and also makes military gains. U.S gets a big market and resource pool and also the confidence of relying on a unblemished democratic system.

These are the fundamentals of the relationship.

Other influences such as the China factor, the WoT scenario, the need to save Pakistan and the need to build a strong Afganistan are purely secondary in this relationship in the Asian context.

So that is the overview that I will take out of this situation...... sometimes, immediate needs precede those important....

And in general too, there have been no all weather relationships in this world. Even that of U.S and U.K have not been all weather, hell, even the Canadians do not like the Americans so much some times. So that is the way the world goes.

 

[Storm Force]

Imo the Americans put THEIR own interests above any single nations first.

In many ways This recent cooling of the USA/INDIA relationship will benefit INDIANS that they will not make the mistake of getting to close at the expense of their greatest steadfast ally RUSSIA.

Although the Americans will sweeten Pakistan with occasional arms supplies for free or on grant aid THEY WILL NOT actively support Pakistan against INDIA over KASHMIR or WATER ISSUES.

Hillary Clinton this week called this a local dispute which has to be resolveed by the 2 parties themselves.

Also somebody called KASHMIR an international recognised dispute. I DISAGREE. ITS AGAIN

Outside of SOUTH ASIA very few people are aware of this dispute. Certainly nothing like the Arab/israeli dispute in GAZA.. GAZA is wat is called a real international recognised dispute.

 

[fallstuff]

International relationships are not always linear. There are stated and unstated objectives. There is also the pecking order. U.S is still the Alpha dog !

 

[pakdefender]

Post 9/11 india thought it could hide under the rack of lady liberty and miam and malign Pakistan and spread terrorism in Pakistan via its new found poodles in afghanistan but alas all they are going to get is a boot in back side