INDIA - US WANTS TO LINE UP TRADE, PROFIT AND REGIONAL CONTROL

Uncle Sam’s worldview Hussain H Zaidi Monday, August 11, 2014 From Print Edition [...] The US wants to preserve the existing global order based on liberalism. The US also realises that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism (Japan and South Korea in East Asia, India in South Asia), to control the world. The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism – at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order – than representative ones. By the same token, free market economy is advocated because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting the political interests of the US government and the economic interests of domestic firms is the pivot on which the American policy revolves. And given India’s political and economic credentials it finely fits into this scheme Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India – the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power – is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order. Indo-US economic and commercial relations are growing. Merchandise trade between the two countries has gone up from $35 billion in 2009 to $63 billion in 2013 including $22 billion exports from the USA and $41 billion exports from India. This gives India a trade surplus of $19 billion – the country's largest trade surplus with any country. For India, the US is the single largest export market and the 5th largest source of imports. The US would like to push up its exports and investment in India and take a larger pie of the enormous Indian market. Coming back to Kerry's recent visit to India, the first US cabinet level visit after the change of the guards in New Delhi, the occasion was the fifth session of the annual strategic dialogue between the two countries. The latest round itself is being seen as preparing the groundwork for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US next month. The joint statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue, inter alia, reaffirmed US support to India's efforts to have a permanent seat on the UNSC; reiterated the “commitment to eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, and disrupting terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba” and asked “Pakistan to work toward bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice.” As the joint statement shows, any account of US-India relations is incomplete without mentioning Pakistan. At least on paper, the US and Pakistan are also strategic partners and encouraging phrases such as ‘enduring partnership’, ‘shared goals’ and ‘mutual interest and respect’ are employed to characterise Washington-Islamabad ties as well. Yet the two sets of relations are different in terms of both the scale and the dynamics. New Delhi's much bigger economic muscles aside, several irritants have held back the Washington-Islamabad [Pakistan] relations. Take the war on terror. The US has long suspected that in the counterterrorism campaign, Pakistan has been hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Although the ongoing military operation in North Waziristan, a long-standing US demand, will serve to dampen such suspicion, concerns regarding Pakistan being ‘soft’ on, if not allegedly supporting, non-state actors' involvement in cross-border terrorism is not likely to die down. Likewise, Washington has not conceded to Islamabad's [Pakistan's] demand for transfer of nuclear technology, because it suspects Islamabad does not have a clean record in non-proliferation. The US mediation on Kashmir on Pakistan's terms is also out of the question, as India has been successful in having the world see the militancy in the disputed territory as an expression of religious extremism. It is precisely for this reason that China, also facing religious uprising in its Muslim majority province of Xinjiang, no more supports Pakistan's Kashmir stance. Islamabad, on its part, complains that it has not been adequately compensated for the economic loss caused by the war on terror; that the US aid has too many strings attached to it and is cut off arbitrarily; that at times its sovereignty has been violated by American forces; that Americans have been oblivious to its major demands including a civil nuclear technology agreement – similar to the one with India – having UNSC resolutions on Kashmir implemented, and granting preferential market access to Pakistan exports in what is their single largest destination. Pakistan's problem is not that it's smaller than India but that it is an unstable society governed by a fragile political system – a fatal combination. The position held by such a country in a world power's worldview is qualitatively different from that occupied by a much more stable country. Hence, whereas the US interest in Islamabad consists mainly in the war on terror and nuclear non proliferation, New Delhi has a much larger role to play in Washington's scheme of things. EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-266459-Uncle-Sams-worldview

Sounds like the US uses the same old 'partnership' spiel on everyone.

US interest in forming 'partnerships' is to maintain control on a global scale, for US political interests and US corporate interests.

US also wants stability (undisrupted trade) and some of that Indian trade surplus cash.

It appears to have a different relationship with Pakistan, due to the 'fragile political system' in Pakistan.

The US interest in Pakistan is (a) suppression of 'terror' and (b) nuclear non-proliferation.

Sore points for Pakistan are:

• Kashmir
• Insufficient compensation for economic losses (Pakistan bound up in military / 'war on terror' US directives)
• US aid - many strings attached; arbitrary.
• US military violation of Pakistan's sovereignty
• Oblivious to Pakistan demands:

• civil nuclear technology agreement
• Implementation of US Security Council resolutions - Kashmir
• the granting of preferential market access to Pakistan exports

-------------------------------------------------

Found this article an interesting one.

Unfamiliar with the 'war on terror' aspects and with the issue in Kashmir, but aware from other articles/sources that much of the US aid to Pakistan is spent on military rather than economic purposes.

US isn't intrinsically interested in democracy.  

US wants (a) regional stability (b) stable trade (c) free markets (d) strategic and political global control -- and this, by and large, is all about serving corporate American interests.

....................................................................

Checking out Google images out of curiosity, came across some scary looking stuff going on in Pakistan.  

Looks like there's bombings.

Appear to be ordinary people who have got massive guns (machine guns?).  

Loads of violence.

Russia and India and the US

Russia and India Report Article Time for India to stand by Russia Both countries would benefit if Russian companies were given a red carpet to operate in India, especially in infrastructure projects. August 1, 2014 Ajay Kamalakaran  It was quite obvious that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was in India this week, was trying hard to ‘persuade’ External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and the Indian government to take a hard line against Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis. It’s for good measure that there is now a government in New Delhi that is actually bothered about Indian national interest and not following an agenda that is being set by Washington. [LOL ... that last bit definitely sounds true.  See WTO & food security.] ... China is a country that America has realised can never be swayed in its direction. Its size and growing influence give the world’s second largest economy enough confidence to not be bullied by the West, basically making it a lost cause for Washington.  India on the other hand is a key for American designs to divide the world into what it classifies as good guys and bad guys. Although Barack Obama initially seemed less confrontational and much more of a dove than his predecessor, he does his Nobel Peace Prize a disservice.  [LOL.  Yep.] ... The very fact that the West is trying to isolate Russia is a good opportunity for Russian companies to expand their cooperation with both India and Indian companies, especially in infrastructure projects. This is the best time to welcome Russian investment in India and offer tax breaks and preferential agreements for Russian businesses. It would be a winning formula for both countries. There is also some talk about trading in national currencies, but here India and Russia need to exercise a lot of caution. There were a lot of complaints from both sides about the way the old rupee-rouble trade was conducted and things threatened to boil over in the early 1990s over the exact evaluation. It may be better to wait and watch how Russia and China are able to trade in roubles and yuan, before replicating the example in trade with India. Many major economies would like to reduce their dependence on the dollar but this has to be done in a practical and planned manner. China’s overt support for Russia has not led to any serious repercussions from the West, simply because America and its allies are afraid of doing anything that would cause mutual and irreparable damage. The same would apply for India, which is now too big and strategically important to risk ‘losing.’ This is precisely why greater cooperation amongst the BRICS nations is making those trying to protect the existing world order nervous. Greater Indo-Russian engagement and cooperation, both bilaterally and in multilateral setups like the BRICS, is one of the keys to a new global order: one that is not dominated by a war-hungry superpower. Extracts only Source - Russia and India Report - here.

Thought this was worth reading.  It's extracts only.  Complete article @ link provided.

Spot on about a couple of things.

Need to learn about currency trading, as I don't know anything at all about that.

Anyway, it was a good read.  :)

WTO - Corporate Greed Blocks Food Security

India's demands block $1 trillion WTO deal on customs rules By David Brunnstrom and Tom Miles GENEVA Fri Aug 1, 2014 6:22am IST (Reuters) - The World Trade Organization failed on Thursday to reach a deal to standardise customs rules, which would have been the first global trade reform in two decades but was blocked by India's demands for concessions on agricultural stockpiling.  [How about blocked by a reasonable request to raise levels to meet inflation?] ... WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" last December, but it needed to be put into the WTO rule book by July 31. Most diplomats saw that as rubber-stamping a unique success in the WTO's 19 year history, which according to some estimates would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy, so they were shocked when India unveiled its veto.  [And I'm shocked they're all so greedy that bringing food security up to levels that take inflation into account is not a priority.] Trade experts say Thursday's failure is likely to end the era of trying to cobble together global trade agreements and to accelerate efforts by smaller groups of like-minded nations to liberalise trade among themselves. India has been vocal in opposing such moves, making its veto even more surprising. "Today’s developments suggest that there is little hope for truly global trade talks to take place," said Jake Colvin at the National Foreign Trade Council, a leading U.S. business group. ... Some nations have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead regardless, and the International Chamber of Commerce urged officials to "make it happen." “Our message is clear. Get back to the table, save this deal and get the multilateral trade agenda back on the road to completion sooner rather than later,” ICC Secretary General John Danilovich said. ... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on a visit to New Delhi, had earlier said he was hopeful that differences between India and much of the rest of the world could be resolved. [He also said what amounts to a hope that India's fair call for adjustment would 'wither away'.] India's new nationalist government has insisted that a permanent agreement on its subsidised food stockpiling must be in place at the same time as the trade facilitation deal, well ahead of a 2017 target set last December in Bali. Kerry, whose visit to India was aimed at revitalising bilateral ties but was overshadowed by the standoff, said the United States understood India's position that it needs to provide food security for its poor but India would lose out if it refused to maintained its veto. [So he doesn't care about food; he cares about profit?] DEAL WITHOUT INDIA? Diplomats say India could technically attract a trade dispute if it caused the deal to collapse, although nobody wanted to threaten legal action at this stage. The summer break will give diplomats time to mull options, including moving ahead without India. [OMG; they're threatening legal action!  This is perverse.] ... http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/india-trade-wto-idINKBN0G02GV20140801

Headline ought to be:   Corporate Greed Blocks WTO Customs Rules Deal -- and Denies Poor Food

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

WTO TALKS - INDIA STAYING STRONG

WTO talks down to the wire, India holds out fe Bureau | New Delhi | Published: Jul 31 2014, 01:08 IST Even as Thursday’s deadline for signing the protocol for the trade facilitation agreement (TFA) at the WTO loomed large, India remained obdurate, asserting that the pact — expected to ease customs rules and potentially add $1 trillion to the world economy — could not be a done deal till it saw progress on the food security issue. Visiting the US commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, however, sounded optimistic about finding a solution to the vexed issue “over the next couple of days”. Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment. Kerry arrived in India in the evening on a three-day visit. ... http://www.financialexpress.com/news/wto-talks-down-to-the-wire-india-holds-out/1275271

WTO (World Trade Organisation).

Re:  adoption of free trade facilitation protocol for Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).

WTO is negotiating an easing of 'customs and rules'.

WTO says 'public stockholdings' of food/grain must not exceed 10% of grains produced by a country. 

But this is on the basis of a 1986-1988 stockholdings 'base price', and India is challenging on the basis of rising INFLATION.

Hey, I learnt about inflation. 

So the WTO 10% (dollar?) figure doesn't take into account rising inflation and India is like a trade union for food/grain reserves, asking for the reserve to be brought up in step with inflation?

Fair call, India.

India points out that there's a potential $1 TRILLION to the world economy coffers.  Go India! 

India standing firm:  insists no shift in its stand.

India wants TFA implemented ONLY as part of SINGLE UNDERTAKING ... INCLUDING the PERMANENT SOLUTION ON FOOD SECURITY.

For Food Security Against Food Security WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION vs FOOD SECURITY INDIA CHINA CUBA PAKISTAN BOLIVIA VENEZUELA

Deadline is on 31 July 2014.  Support of two-thirds of member countries is required to implement the TFP.

India suggested a postponement of adoption of TFP and outlined steps towards resolution by a date in December.

*Note:  there is a couple of other issues at stake. Bali Package (a big one) ... and LDC.

Bali Package is yet another trade agreement 'to lower trade barriers'.

LDC issues relate to Least Developed Country ... it's a United Nations designation of a country (I think) on the basis of:

lowest indicators of socio-economic development, with the lowest Human Development Index ratings of all countries in the world.  [wikipedia]

So there is some formula the UN apply for rankings of countries on socio-economic development.

Formula:  (1) Poverty assessment (2) Human Resource assessment (ie the labour force) (3) Economic Vulnerability ... eg. are exports stable etc.

Gee, sounds like estimating the quality of cattle.

All this stuff is worked out by economists and I guess it affects the trade deals that countries are party to and, I think, the concessions that countries may receive.

As I'm new to looking at politics and economics, this information is best double-checked.  LOL.

This is just my take at the moment.

Stand firm India ... world economy wants those trillions.

PS ... Love how John Kerry wants India's opposition to 'wither away'.  Bet he does.  LOL.

US NAVY PLAY DATE - JAPAN & INDIA

Another US navy play-date.

This time with India (accompanied by Japan).

Wall Street Journal Article [...] Japan, backed by the U.S., has launched a diplomatic offensive to draw other Asian countries into a more united front against China, which has been butting heads with its neighbors in the East China Sea and South China Sea. India, likewise, has accused Chinese troops of making repeated incursions into Indian-controlled parts of the Himalayas. The two countries fought a 1962 war over their Himalayan border. Indian officials have also grown concerned about China's presence in the Indian Ocean, which India sees as within its sphere of influence and which encompasses critical transit routes for shipments of Mideast oil to India as well as to China, Japan and the rest of East Asia. Beijing has bankrolled port construction in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and its navy has been more active in the region. China, for its part, has sought to improve economic relations with India. [...] As part of the U.S.'s strategic pivot to Asia, the U.S. has announced plans to shift a bulk of its naval assets to the region within the next decade and increase the number of military exercises it conducts. SOURCE - WSJ - here.

As usual, the US is in the midst of bickering and is making the most of the opportunities it affords.

Looks like there's some gang-gathering going on as well, and Japan's been deputised to form the Asian posse.

China's put up the cash for ports at Pakistan and Sri Lanka, which is impressive.

And the weird part:  US planning on shifting bulk naval assets to Asian region in next decade.

David Cameron's Speech - Farnborough Air Show

Speech
Prime Minister's speech opening Farnborough Air Show

From:
    Cabinet Office, Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Delivered on:
    10 July 2012 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)
History:
    Published 10 July 2012

David Cameron considers the current state and the future of the UK aerospace industry.
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP

It gives me great pleasure to be here today to open the Farnborough Air Show and the first thing I want to say is a very big thank you. You are a vitally important industry for the United Kingdom and for the future of our country and our economy.

In a hugely difficult time in the global economy, when we’re tackling a massive budget deficit at home, UK aerospace is flying high:

    employing more than 100,000 people;
    turning over more than £20 billion a year; and
    winning contracts for more than a decade in advance.

Every two and a half seconds a plane powered by a Rolls Royce engine takes off. Our Hawk aircraft are used by 25 air-forces around the world. British firms are developing new technologies to send tourists into space and inventing telescopes that can see the oldest parts of the universe.

Across civil aviation, defence, security and space research, this is a real success story and I want to thank everyone here for helping make it happen. I also want to welcome guests who have come from overseas today and to say here how much we welcome firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GE, Finmeccanica, Thales and Airbus who come and create good jobs here.

Those collaborations are crucial to the success of the UK industry. But my biggest message today is that there can be no complacency. Yes, we’ve got a 17 per cent share of the global market, but as everyone here knows, the rest of the world is breathing down our necks.

We’ve got to be constantly alive to this competition - constantly looking to get ahead - and that includes government just as much as industry. I don’t want anyone here to be in any doubt that this is a massive industrial priority for me, for this whole government.

Some might say ‘you’re talking like some 1970s-style central planner - aren’t you meant to be a free-market Conservative?’ Frankly, I am a do-what-works Conservative. I don’t believe in picking winners but I absolutely believe in backing them.

I’m not going to just sit back while China and India invest in more high-tech engineers; while countries across the world snap at Britain’s heels. We are determined to do everything we can to back UK aerospace and I hear three big things that you want from us:

Number one - you want stability and certainty about the future. We’ve heard this loud and clear. When it takes fifteen years from the start of a programme to getting that aircraft in the sky, fifteen years more to break even and fifteen years more to make a profit, you cannot have governments that think short-term.

But that has been the story. There was a great surge of investment in the 70s and 80s and since then it’s gone a bit stop-start, with government scraping around, getting some cash and saying ‘can you start a new programme tomorrow?’

You can’t do business like that - and we get that. That’s why we’ve launched the Aerospace Growth Partnership. This is about us working together, thinking really long-term about how to make the UK the best place to design, manufacture and export.

Crucially, it’s not someone in Whitehall working out how many bolts should be in the next AgustaWestland helicopter; it’s a long-term industrial partnership that is being led by you; bringing more predictability to how you’re funded, how you research and how you plot your moves into new markets.

And speaking of AgustaWestland, the new AW189 which is going to fly here at Farnborough for the first time is a really good example of how government can work with you. We announced a £32million support package last year, already it’s bearing fruit, and that bodes well both for the diversification into civil aircraft and a closer partnership between government and business.

The second thing we hear from you is about skills. You want more vision, more investment - and with this government you’re getting it. We’re delivering a quarter of a million extra apprenticeships, rolling out 25,000 new Higher apprenticeships in sectors like aviation and establishing 24 new University Technical Colleges in the next couple of years.

Our universities are the finest in the world and we’re building on that reputation; investing £4.6 billion a year in science and research. And today we announce something else: a partnership with industry to have 500 new Master’s level graduates in aerospace engineering over the next three years. We are only as good as the people we’ve got and the skills they have got - and this just shows we are determined to be the best.

Third, we hear you want more support on exports - particularly defence exports. Now I personally have loaded up plane after plane with executives so we can get signatures on British contracts - and however much flak I got for that, I will do it all over again.

But there’s more that we as a government should do. We recognise there is a clear relationship between what the Ministry of Defence buys and the export orders you secure, because those overseas buyers want products that are mature and battle-proven. Over the past two years we have come in and taken a defence budget that was falling apart at the seams and we’ve sorted it out.

This isn’t some exercise in accounting for its own sake - it’s allowed us to turn the unfunded wish-lists we inherited into real commitments: new Chinooks; new work on the Warrior programme; an upgrade to our reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

And because of the work we’ve done, we can say that not only are we still going to have the fourth-largest defence budget in the world - but it’s going to be sustainable. Now when it comes to future decisions, we’ve made clear the priority has got to be getting maximum defence capability for every pound that’s spent.

Our armed forces deserve nothing less. But I don’t see this as an ‘either/or’ situation - buying for value or buying British. There’s more we can do to join the dots; to think in a more careful way about how to back this industry while getting the best deal for the Ministry of Defence as a customer. [????]

To that end I can tell you that just as we have started up the Aerospace Growth Partnership for the civil sector, so we want to start a similar dialogue with the defence and security industry - building on the White Paper published this year - so we can help you grow and thrive and create new jobs.

And as just a taster of that new, more collaborative approach I can make another announcement today. Typhoon and Tornado, equipped with outstanding low-collateral, high-precision munitions, were the battle winners in Libya. As Prime Minister I can tell you that it means an enormous amount to know that we have highly capable crews on highly capable aircraft. You know they are going to do exactly the job you have asked them to do and the precision is absolutely brilliant.

Building on that success, we have agreed with our partners to exploit the growth potential of Typhoon; boosting its already world-beating capabilities with integration of new weapons including the METEOR missile, an Electronically Scanned Radar and enhanced ground attack capability.

That’s good for the RAF which needs these capabilities, good for our export customers who want these capabilities and it is very good for the British manufacturers and British workers who are going to benefit.

It is now for industry to come forward with innovative and affordable proposals so we can move ahead together. And this is what our approach is all about: reconciling what’s best for UK security and the UK economy - and above all, thinking long-term.

So this, in short, is what you’re going to get from us: an unstinting, unrelenting, unflagging commitment to making Britain the best place in the world for aerospace. Our driving vision is to build an economy that is built on hi-tech manufacturing, that is fuelled by exports, that is making and selling the products the world wants to buy.

I look forward to working with everyone here to achieve that and now it gives me real pleasure to announce that the Farnborough Air Show 2012 is officially open for business.
Share this page

Published:
    10 July 2012

From:
    Cabinet Office
    Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street
    The Rt Hon David Cameron MP
-----------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

• 4th largest military spending in the world is massive spending.
• So it's military/technology race with India & China?
• What exactly did Cameron have to do to get executive signatures? 

Best part of speech was:

Frankly, I am a do-what-works Conservative. 

So I was right; he cannot be trusted because he'll do whatever is expedient.