Our Foreign Policy: What Should we do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raj2rif

Active member
The sale of F-16s to Pakistan is very unfortunate and on face value looks to me a failure on part of our foreign policy. We as a country need to look around and find valuable economic, diplomatic and military alliances to pursue our foreign policy objectives.

While, the issud of F-16 seems to be motivated more due to economic reasons, rather than diplomatic reasons, India needs to take is seriously. The denial of Visa to one of the elected leaders of Indian States followed by the decision to sell F-16s to Pak shows how seriously US considers India as a Nation in her foreign policy. I don't know for how long we will continue to bear this non-sense in the garb of improving our relations with US. This all has come at a time when India is trying to improve her relations with Pak.

Another failure on Indian foreign policy front is the statement made by Mr. Musharraf about Kashmir during his visit for the cricket match. It should have been the condition for him to invite that he will make no political statement during the visit.

Any suggestions to Mr. Manmohan and Mr. Natwar Singh?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1063092,curpg-2.cms
 
Col Sahab,

Let me be blunt, India has no foreign policy at all. In fact it never had. We boast of non-aligned and panchsheel. What they are ? Simple escapism. We have not been able to raise our foreign policy above Pakistan. It commences at 'P' and finishes at 'N'. Moreover, the present External Affairs Minister has proved to be the worst EAM India has ever had. Pity he is a jat but lacks the basic qualities of a jat i.e. aggression. I have no hesitatation to say that Jaswant Singh and to a lesser extent Sinha have been the best EAMs in independet India. When our Foreign Minister himself does not understand the meaning of statements he makes, we can visualise where he is going to take the country. Our Ambassador at large in America was doing a commendable job, but he was removed simply because he was appointed by the BJP. It shows that we care a hoot about our foreign policy. It has been the policy of our Government to give preference to USSR/Russia over USA mainly because of weapons. We have been buying garbage in the name of weapons from Russia, on the pretext of being cheaper (fact is Russia offers more commission) and thus endangering the lives of our airmen and soldiers. How many lives MIGs have claimed is no secret.
 
Dear Sahrawat Ji,

Our closeness to Russia was not by design but out of compulsion. Pakistan has done one thing better than us as and that is having a steady foreign policy. Mr. Shaharyaar Khan remained their foreign minister for a very long time irrespective of the government in the Pakistan. Similarly Mr. Z.A. Bhutto was their foreign minister for a very long time. I don't know about the credibitities of Mr. Khan, but Mr. Bhutto was known to be a very good orator who could convince other people well. It was probably this reason, that inspite of being closer to India in 1965 conflict, Indo-US relations were at their lowest in 1971. After 1971 the situation changed drastically in the oil rich region. The fall of Shahs in Iran and Afghanistan made Pakistan a front line state for US and thus their military aid to Pakistan. We on our part had no option but to have a good relationship with other super power at that time. Unfortunately the relations with Russia have not been very smooth at functional level. We did not get ammunition for our 130 mm guns during 1971 war from Russia. So our equipment arrived with out ammunition.

The fall of Soviet Union saw lots of Eastern Europeon countries selling Russian defense equipment. Here also Pakistan scored over us. They got same T-72 tanks from Poland at half the cost we paid to Russia. Not only that our BRDM-1 deal was a wash out with people making commissions I guess. BRDM came without Faggot Missiles and then we bought Faggot Missiles to fit onto them and then BRDM-II to make for our mistakes in buying.

I happen to talk to some one here working at high position in main defense manufacturing firm Lockheed Martin. This firm does not want to do business in India as they don't want to pay commissions to middlemen. The commission asked for are huge. The company can't lower their price to accomodate commissions and the actual price to government with hidden commissions become un competetive and un affordable I guess.

I agree with you about Mr. Natwar Singh. His performance till now has been only below mediocre. I think the analytical power of our congress leaders ends at 10 Janpath. This happens when a political leader does not have his own political base.

The situation looks pathetic to say the least as far as foreign policy is concerned. With so many Indians doing so much in US economy, this kind of decisions by US and no reactions from India are only disturbing. No government in US can do similar thing to Israel for sure.
 
Yes it is very sensitive issue. Indian leaders could not put up their protest strongly against the sail of F-16 in front of US Govt. It was really an unfortunate decision. As I know America always plays back side game with India. It never takes Indian concern seriously and despite it every government in India always looks toward the face of US Govt. Hamari Govt. hamesa America ki pichelagu rehe hai. And such kind strategy was started during the Vajpayee Govt. None decision had been taken by the Vajpyeeji without the permission of U.S. Govt. Thus it shows our weakness at the stage of foreign policy.
I think we should try to make our relation good with other country such as china , japan rather than America.

As far as the matter of buying F-18. we should reject this offer because it may increase weapon running in Asia. and america yehi to chata hai. Uske liye barh maie jaye baki country usko to apne hathiyaro ko bachna hai .... and ismaie maie wo safal bi reha hai....
 
'America lost India on March 25'
NEW YORK: The Bush administration's decision to sell F-16 jets to Pakistan amounts to "rejecting India at the altar" of a new relationship and was "strategically a bad move", former Senator Larry Pressler has said.

"Yesterday (March 25 when President George W Bush called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to convey the F-16 decision) was a sad day, the day we lost India," Pressler said in an interview.
"I am bewildered by this decision. It is strategically such a bad move," he said.
He was the Republican author of the Pressler Amendment that banned military assistance to Pakistan because of its nuclear programme.
Drawing on an Indian marriage metaphor, he said: "India and the US were in the sixth round (out of the ritual seven rounds) of their relationship and this decision would force India to think otherwise.
"By selling the F-16s to Pakistan the US is affirming that Pakistan is a military equal of India.
"India will have two equals in military terms, Pakistan on one side and China on the other," Pressler said.
"I don't think India can accept that."
Asked what the Bush administration's motivation could be other than the popularly argued case that it was to reward Pakistan for supporting its war on terror, Pressler said: "The concept of rewarding a country for what any country should do is wrong.

"Pakistan has been rewarded enough. And in any case what have F-16s got to do with fighting terror?
"I am not saying this because I want a good press in India but I think we are dancing with the devil," he said.
Pressler said it was "outrageous" that neither the US media nor the Indian government and nor, for that matter, the Indian American community had raised a strong protest against the decision.
Pressler said he was among the first US lawmakers in 1980 to raise the issue of Pakistan's role as a nuclear proliferator and all that had come to be true as is now being discovered in the unravelling nuclear black market created by AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.
The former senator has long been a proponent of the US taking a "robust pro-India stance" because it is a functioning democracy with the rule of law, a free press and healthy parliamentary system.
Pakistan, on the other hand, has struck him as a "corrupt, absolute dictatorship".
Pressler said he recognised the important role played by Pakistan in the US war on terror and was appreciative of it but selling F-16s to the country was outrageous.

Pressler said more than many other countries, the foreign policy of the US was dominated by "Pentagon's military-industrial complex".

"It is easy to deal with Pakistan for these Pentagon types because they just have to deal with one person.
"It is all very neat. In India on the other hand you have the prime minister, Parliament, a free press and aware people," he said.
"But in the long-term it is always better to deal with a democracy."
Asked how seriously the F-16 sale might affect bilateral relations with India, Pressler said: "It is hard to say in the short-term.
"India is in a very subservient position with the US because of many reasons.
"But in the long-term it cannot be good."
Pressler, 62, spent 18 years as a senator and four years as a congressman, being on many important committees, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He is a veteran India observer, having studied it during his graduate years at Oxford.
Later, throughout his career, he has kept up his contacts with the country, visiting it 40 times.
After leaving Senate in 1997, Pressler has been involved in private business, focusing on telecommunications law practice.
 
Pressler and his ilk are in minority

That's a good article that you posted, Mukesh. It shows the heterogeneity of views within the US on the issue of Indo-US relations. The fact however is that Pressler is not part of the establishment. In fact Pressler was rendered ineffective long ago when Bush Sr overrode Pressler amendment, which forbade foreign aid to a country suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. Bush Sr certified to the Congress that Pakistan did not have any such program, which enabled the US to resume aid to it. Of course, it has to be read in the context of US involvement in Afghanistan at that point, of which Pakistan was the fulcrum. Now US runs arounds claiming to be concerned about proliferation when they turned a total blind eye to Pakistan's consistent and extensive record in that regard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top