Within a day of the U.S. Congress voting to slash American military aid to Pakistan by $650 million the Senate India Caucus pressed a top defence official in the Obama administration to seek closer defence ties with India, arguing that recent arms deals “have benefitted the U.S. and India alike, increasing commonality of military equipment platforms, providing expanded opportunities to conduct joint military exercises, and contributing to security in the Indo-Pacific region.”
Ahead of a trip to India by Deputy Defence Secretary Ashton Carter the co-Chairs of the India Caucus, Senators John Cornyn and Mark Warner, encouraged the Pentagon to “actively engage with your Indian counterparts to develop ways to improve the compatibility of the defence acquisition systems of the U.S. and India.”
The Senators highlighted two aspects of defence cooperation in particular, in their push for deeper ties between the two nations.
First, they cited a June 2012 report by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, which focused on convergence between the military procurement and sales procedures and protocols between New Delhi and Washington.
The heads of the Caucus noted that while India has been striving to improve its Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) since its initial release in 2002, “moving toward a transparent procurement system... can instil confidence in U.S. companies that seek to enter the Indian market.” They emphasised the section of the CSIS report that “rightly recommends that India be encouraged to continue these reforms, specifically to ensure that its DPP encompasses a strategic acquisition plan and request for proposal process, and that its acquisition system provides the requisite predictability and flexibility.”
On the U.S. side the Senators touted the “many advantages” that the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system held for India, including the support that the FMS enjoyed within the U.S. federal government.
A second key point emphasised by Senators Cornyn and Warner was that it may be the right time for India and the U.S. to embark on a cooperative venture in co-production and –development of military weapons systems. In this context they cited the Pentagon’s November 2011 report to Congress on U.S.-India Security Cooperation, and argued that that report “indicated strong receptivity to this idea.”
They highlighted a section of that report which said that the U.S. was “seeking opportunities for increased science and technology cooperation that may lead to co-development opportunities with India as a partner [and]... As our relationship continues to mature, we expect co-development of armaments to become a reality.”
In this context the Senate India Caucus chiefs urged Mr. Carter to “aggressively pursue co-development or co-production opportunities, which would prove mutually beneficial not just to the U.S. and Indian defense industries, but also to the long-term relationship of our two militaries.”
Keywords: U.S. Senate, Pentagon, defence ties, Obama administration, Indo-US relations, bilateral ties
I cannot agree more with JK Dutt. US has been trying to get India as an alliance partner in its imperialist misadventures. This poisoned chalice has to be resisted to avoid getting deeply embroiled in regional conflicts at US's terms at the expense of India's own regional strategic interests.
India must be very careful about getting close to USA because the
latter is an undependable ally and is habituated to using a country to
its advantage and then discarding it. New Delhi found this out to its
chagrin when under Washington's pressure, we got unnecessarily
involved in Afghanistan where we suffered casualties at the hands of
terrorists. We also angered Iran by voting against it twice at the
IAEA, and have antagonised China by poking our nose in the sensitive
South China Sea. What we must be on our guard now is getting trapped
into deploying our army in Afghanistan post 2014 as this appears to be
USA's objective. We have been fooled by its dangling the carrot of a
UN high table seat, something that will never materialise simply
because the P5 will never accept any addition to their status.
Average citizens don't have much to gain and lots to lose in military expansion. Let us ask some questions. Do we really need to spend billions to keep citizens safe? It's the same corporations selling weapons to multiple countries, so who really has the upper hand? If India gains newer weapons, China and others will simply up the ante. Is the purpose of the military simply to deter and not proactively engage in wars like the U.S.? Most weapons worth billions of dollars go unused as new technology comes out. So what happens with the old ones? Today, most countries have enough capabilities to deter any foreign invasion. So the new threat to sovereignty comes from borderless terrorists and not mighty armies. Instead of procuring military toys, perhaps the money could be better spent on civilian security at major public hubs.
Please Email the Editor