The independent foreign Policy of India. 81% UN Votes Against US

[Maulik]

debunking myth that India is a slave of US
/WEST.. India has independent foreign policy.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time in U.N.
Arab Nations Vote Against the U.S. in the U.N. - BreakTheChain.org

[Maulik]

India snubs US, to attend nuclear meet in Iran

The Indian government will stand by its decision to take part in a nuclear meeting slated for mid-April in the Iranian capital, Tehran, in a move that is set to irk the US administration.

According to a report published by The Hindustan Times on Sunday, the conference dubbed “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapon for None" will be held on April 17 and 18 in Tehran. The Indian Ambassador to Iran, Sanjay Singh, will represent India at the event, which will be attended by ministers, officials and nuclear experts from over 55 countries.

The decision to participate in the international nuclear disarmament meet comes while Washington continues its efforts to impose new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

The Tehran event will be held only days after a nuclear security summit between US President Barak Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington on April 12 and 13.

Earlier, India rejected a call from the US to walk away from pipeline project carrying natural gas from Iran through Pakistan, saying "energy security" is a priority for its rapidly growing economy.

Iran and Pakistan inked a deal in March to construct a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline connecting the two neighboring countries, and India is interested in the further extension of the line to its borders if the pipeline's security can be guaranteed in Pakistan. The project is strongly opposed by the US. The deal is part of the long-delayed $7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project.

India snubs US, to attend nuclear meet in Iran

[unknownprince]

why don't they listen to MK Bhadrakumar? Why are they supporting US war against Afghanistan? Why did they support Soviet war against Afghanistan?

yeah, it would be nice if the Indian slave government listened to its people.

BUT it does not, it is a doormat for America. No one in Asia cared about Hillary Clinton, and India threw a big party for her.

India is just like Pakistan and Kabul.

[Maulik]

the second major snub for the US from India which has decided to reject two major defence agreements, CISMOA and LSA, which would have allowed US access to Indian defence communication as well as access to Indian ports and airports. US President Barack Obama had pushed for this proposal during his November visit to India. But Govt sources say that the Union Defence Ministry and the armed forces have decided against the agreements.

The absence of CISMOA restricts US from transferring certain high-tech equipment to India. US wants to enhance the ‘interoperability’ of the Indian and American forces, as also ensure secrecy of its C4ISR (command, control, communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) systems, through CISMOA. Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) envisages Indian and American militaries providing logistic support, refuelling and berthing facilities for each other's warships and aircraft on barter or an equal-value exchange basis.
Second big snub for America- TIMESNOW.tv - Latest Breaking News, Big News Stories, News Videos

[Maulik]

India’s US Fighter Snub. .Rejects F16 and F18

India’s Defence Ministry did the previously unthinkable earlier this month. As reported previously in The Diplomat, India eliminated two major US aviation firms—Boeing and Lockheed Martin—from the race to secure a lucrative $11 billion contract to supply 126 combat jets to the Indian Air Force.

After a gruelling, two-year process including field trials of the six aircraft in extreme weather conditions, the Defence Ministry shortlisted two European firms—EADS and Dassault Aviation. Swedish Firm Saab and Russian RSK MiG were the other two bidders left disappointed.

The decision sent shockwaves through Washington’s defence establishment as it had expended significant political, diplomatic and commercial capital in trying to secure the contract. Indeed, US President Barack Obama lobbied on behalf of the US firms during his November 2010 visit to New Delhi, following up with a letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

But was the decision worth the potential political fallout?

As Ashley Tellis, noted India analyst and a former security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, says, ‘India has chosen a plane over a strategic partnership.’

The clear implication is that India shunned an opportunity to cement emerging strategic ties with the United States by rejecting its planes. But Air Force and Ministry officials have stuck to their guns, arguing that they made the decision based purely on the merits of the respective bids.

According to sources in both organizations, there were several factors working against the Americans, including the fact that the Indian Air Force had found that the two US planes on offer had reached their ‘technological’ limits (the Rafael and Eurofighter Typhoon were believed to have scope to add further ‘teeth’ at some point), India’s rival Pakistan uses the F-16 Super Viper being offered by Lockheed, and perhaps above all, the United States was insisting that India sign what officials believed were intrusive agreements giving the Americans the right to carry out on-site inspection of US-supplied platforms.

Lost in all the fuss over the rejection of the US firms’ offers has been that the Russians were also extremely upset that India has, in their eyes, turned its back on an almost four decades-long defence partnership with Moscow. Indeed, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is said to have personally called his Indian counterpart to express disappointment over the Indian decision.

Russia was the first of the disappointed bidders to write to the Defence Ministry, although all four have now filed, requesting more information on why their particular fighter was given the chop.

The response is no surprise to Indian officials. ‘We’ll deal with the backlash,’ one top Ministry official, who asked not to be named, told me following the filing of the letters. ‘One contract isn’t the end of a relationship. In any case, both the Americans and the Russians still have a lot of opportunities to win big contracts with India’s growing need to acquire new weapons and platforms.’

This makes sense. The Americans have already secured a significant presence in the Indian defence market, and will undoubtedly see sales boosted further in the coming years.

In January 2009, for example, Boeing was selected to provide eight P-8i long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft to the Indian Navy in a contract worth about $2.1 billion. Earlier this year, meanwhile, six Lockheed Martin C-130 J Super Hercules transport aircraft were inducted into the Indian Air Force in a deal valued at an estimated $1.2 billion.

And there’s more. In the next few months, India is set to finalise two major contracts with the United States through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route—a government-to-government agreement—to buy up to 15 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift transport aircraft (worth more than $4 billion), and will also agree a $1.2-billion contract to buy M-777 ultra-light howitzers for the Indian Army. Indeed, outgoing US Ambassador to India Tim Roemer admitted that the C-17 order alone would benefit ‘30,000 American workers and 650 American suppliers located in 44 states.’

But Sanjaya Baru, writing in the respected Business Standard daily, suggested that despite the protestations that the Indian decision was based only on the technical merits of the European fighters, there might have been a largely overlooked strategic consideration as well.

‘The decision to favour Europe in this deal could also have been prompted by concerns about European economies falling like ninepins and being bailed out by cash-rich China,’ he wrote. ‘Building partnerships in Europe is important, even if less so than building one with the US. Moreover, while promoting Europe as a partner of the Indian Air Force, the US can still emerge as the key partner for India’s increasingly important Navy.’

It’s an intriguing possibility. In the meantime, it’s not just the Americans who have plenty of contract consolation prizes to fall back on. In December 2010, India inked a Memorandum of Agreement with Russia for the development of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft in a project expected to cost anywhere between $25 billion and $30 billion dollars over the next decade.In addition, India is already thinking of ordering more Sukhoi-30 planes from Russia.

The Indian Navy, meanwhile, is awaiting the final delivery in December 2012 of aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (formerly Admiral Gorshkov), which has been refurbished and revamped at a cost of over $2.9 billion.

Indeed, despite the snub over the MiG-35, the Russians continue to dominate the Indian defence market, even with the recent high-profile entry of the Americans.In March this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) ranked India as the world’s largest arms importer, ahead even of China, its biggest competitor in Asia. More importantly, it noted: ‘India received 9 percent of the volume of international arms transfers during 2006-10, with Russian deliveries accounting for 82 percent of Indian arms imports.’

SIPRI’s findings aren’t surprising. Over the past decade, India has increased its defence spending by more than 64 percent, bringing it to about $36.3 billion in the 2010-2011 budget. One estimate suggests India’s defence spending could even hit $80 billion by 2015 as it seeks to modernize its mammoth armed forces.

Given such dramatically high stakes, and with its increasing buying clout, India is now finally in a position to dictate terms to the United States and Russia. The days when New Delhi could be held hostage in negotiations because of a lack of hard cash for the military platforms of its choice are apparently behind it.

Behind India

[Maulik]

India’s US Fighter Snub. .Rejects F16 and F18

India’s Defence Ministry did the previously unthinkable earlier this month. As reported previously in The Diplomat, India eliminated two major US aviation firms—Boeing and Lockheed Martin—from the race to secure a lucrative $11 billion contract to supply 126 combat jets to the Indian Air Force.

After a gruelling, two-year process including field trials of the six aircraft in extreme weather conditions, the Defence Ministry shortlisted two European firms—EADS and Dassault Aviation. Swedish Firm Saab and Russian RSK MiG were the other two bidders left disappointed.

The decision sent shockwaves through Washington’s defence establishment as it had expended significant political, diplomatic and commercial capital in trying to secure the contract. Indeed, US President Barack Obama lobbied on behalf of the US firms during his November 2010 visit to New Delhi, following up with a letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

But was the decision worth the potential political fallout?

As Ashley Tellis, noted India analyst and a former security adviser in the George W. Bush administration, says, ‘India has chosen a plane over a strategic partnership.’

The clear implication is that India shunned an opportunity to cement emerging strategic ties with the United States by rejecting its planes. But Air Force and Ministry officials have stuck to their guns, arguing that they made the decision based purely on the merits of the respective bids.

According to sources in both organizations, there were several factors working against the Americans, including the fact that the Indian Air Force had found that the two US planes on offer had reached their ‘technological’ limits (the Rafael and Eurofighter Typhoon were believed to have scope to add further ‘teeth’ at some point), India’s rival Pakistan uses the F-16 Super Viper being offered by Lockheed, and perhaps above all, the United States was insisting that India sign what officials believed were intrusive agreements giving the Americans the right to carry out on-site inspection of US-supplied platforms.

Lost in all the fuss over the rejection of the US firms’ offers has been that the Russians were also extremely upset that India has, in their eyes, turned its back on an almost four decades-long defence partnership with Moscow. Indeed, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is said to have personally called his Indian counterpart to express disappointment over the Indian decision.

Russia was the first of the disappointed bidders to write to the Defence Ministry, although all four have now filed, requesting more information on why their particular fighter was given the chop.

The response is no surprise to Indian officials. ‘We’ll deal with the backlash,’ one top Ministry official, who asked not to be named, told me following the filing of the letters. ‘One contract isn’t the end of a relationship. In any case, both the Americans and the Russians still have a lot of opportunities to win big contracts with India’s growing need to acquire new weapons and platforms.’

This makes sense. The Americans have already secured a significant presence in the Indian defence market, and will undoubtedly see sales boosted further in the coming years.

In January 2009, for example, Boeing was selected to provide eight P-8i long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft to the Indian Navy in a contract worth about $2.1 billion. Earlier this year, meanwhile, six Lockheed Martin C-130 J Super Hercules transport aircraft were inducted into the Indian Air Force in a deal valued at an estimated $1.2 billion.

And there’s more. In the next few months, India is set to finalise two major contracts with the United States through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route—a government-to-government agreement—to buy up to 15 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift transport aircraft (worth more than $4 billion), and will also agree a $1.2-billion contract to buy M-777 ultra-light howitzers for the Indian Army. Indeed, outgoing US Ambassador to India Tim Roemer admitted that the C-17 order alone would benefit ‘30,000 American workers and 650 American suppliers located in 44 states.’

But Sanjaya Baru, writing in the respected Business Standard daily, suggested that despite the protestations that the Indian decision was based only on the technical merits of the European fighters, there might have been a largely overlooked strategic consideration as well.

‘The decision to favour Europe in this deal could also have been prompted by concerns about European economies falling like ninepins and being bailed out by cash-rich China,’ he wrote. ‘Building partnerships in Europe is important, even if less so than building one with the US. Moreover, while promoting Europe as a partner of the Indian Air Force, the US can still emerge as the key partner for India’s increasingly important Navy.’

It’s an intriguing possibility. In the meantime, it’s not just the Americans who have plenty of contract consolation prizes to fall back on. In December 2010, India inked a Memorandum of Agreement with Russia for the development of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft in a project expected to cost anywhere between $25 billion and $30 billion dollars over the next decade.In addition, India is already thinking of ordering more Sukhoi-30 planes from Russia.

The Indian Navy, meanwhile, is awaiting the final delivery in December 2012 of aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya (formerly Admiral Gorshkov), which has been refurbished and revamped at a cost of over $2.9 billion.

Indeed, despite the snub over the MiG-35, the Russians continue to dominate the Indian defence market, even with the recent high-profile entry of the Americans.In March this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) ranked India as the world’s largest arms importer, ahead even of China, its biggest competitor in Asia. More importantly, it noted: ‘India received 9 percent of the volume of international arms transfers during 2006-10, with Russian deliveries accounting for 82 percent of Indian arms imports.’

SIPRI’s findings aren’t surprising. Over the past decade, India has increased its defence spending by more than 64 percent, bringing it to about $36.3 billion in the 2010-2011 budget. One estimate suggests India’s defence spending could even hit $80 billion by 2015 as it seeks to modernize its mammoth armed forces.

Given such dramatically high stakes, and with its increasing buying clout, India is now finally in a position to dictate terms to the United States and Russia. The days when New Delhi could be held hostage in negotiations because of a lack of hard cash for the military platforms of its choice are apparently behind it.

Behind India

[Maulik]

US embassy cables: Don't tell us what to do, India warns US

SUBJECT: MENON SAYS AHMADINEJAD PLAYED TO MASSES DURING
INDIA VISIT
Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B and D)
Summary

1. In a meeting shortly after controversial stopover visit of Iranian president - who told Indian prime minister that the "world is changing in Iran's favour" - Delhi's top diplomat was uncomplimentary about the visitor to the US ambassador but told the US not to tell India who to meet or not to meet. Key passages highlighted in yellow.

1. (C) Summary: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon related to the Ambassador May 1 that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the Prime Minister during his April 29 stop in Delhi that the world is changing in Iran's favor. When asked for specifics, Menon noted, Ahmadinejad voiced more mild opinions, and called for strengthening the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regarding the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, Menon said that the Prime Minister laid down three criteria that would determine whether India signed a deal with Iran: commercial and economic viability, assured supply, and security. Menon confided that Ahmadinejad concocted the widely reported 45-day window for negotiating the pipeline when he talked to the press on his way to the airport, and Menon doubted that the countries would resolve the outstanding pipeline issues anytime soon. The Ambassador underlined that senior leaders in the U.S. Congress will likely criticize India for giving a platform to the leader of a country engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq, developing nuclear weapons with which to blackmail other countries, and sponsoring terrorism worldwide. End Summary.

- - -

Ahmadinejad Broadly Ideological But Mild on Specifics

- - -

2. (C) Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon related to the Ambassador May 1 that he wanted to provide a briefing of the April 29 "transit stop" in Delhi by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Note: Menon had originally requested the meeting on the evening of April 30, but rescheduled when the Prime Minister summoned Menon to his residence. End Note.) Menon outlined that, after landing at the airport at 16:30, Ahmadinejad met the Indian President for 45 minutes, followed by a meeting and dinner with the Prime Minister, in which Menon participated. During the meeting with the Prime Minister, Menon related, Ahmadinejad described a world that has improved from Iran's point of view, and would continue to shift in Iran's favor. Menon admitted that "I had not realized how ideological Ahmadinejad is." He noted that while Ahmadinejad did not attack the U.S. explicitly, he opined that the U.S. has destabilized Iraq and would withdraw soon. When asked about specifics, Menon continued, Ahmadinejad became "relatively mild." Regarding Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad noted that there was no alternative to Hamid Karzai and called for strengthening the government in Kabul, and regarding Iraq, he called for greater law and order, but considered the Maliki government good. "There was no fire and brimstone in the details," Menon observed.

- - -

India Lays Down Criteria for Pipeline

- - -

3. (C) Menon said that the discussion with the Prime Minister focused on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline, and Ahmadinejad made clear that he aimed to produce an agreement in Delhi. However, the Prime Minister laid down that India required more detailed discussions to obtain three conditions that would allow India to sign up to the IPI: commercial and economic viability, assured supply, and security of the pipeline. Ahmadinejad gave his word that the pipeline would satisfy those conditions, and asked that Indian leaders trust him. He then agreed to more detailed discussions, but to commence within a month. "We said no to artificial deadlines," Menon stressed to the Ambassador. Ahmadinejad later told the press that the countries have 45 days to work out an agreement, but Menon maintained, "I don't know where he got that number from, but his goal in India was to say that." (Note: Menon has not corrected Ahmadinejad's statement in public. End Note.) "We made clear that our issues are more than just the price of a transaction," he underlined, averred that it would take a long time to resolve the conditions set out by the Indian government.

- - -

India Pushes Iran for Full Disclosure in IAEA

- - -

NEW DELHI 00001194 002 OF 003

4. (C) Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Menon related that Ahmadinejad reiterated his public points that Iran intended the program for peaceful use. Menon said that the Prime Minister acknowledged Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program, but urged Ahmadinejad to assure the international community of its peaceful intentions by coming clean with the IAEA, which Iran has not done. Ahmadinejad also made clear that the uranium enrichment program would continue, Menon added. India's votes against Iran in the IAEA did not come up, he continued. Menon thanked the Ambassador for the April 27 briefing prior to Ahmadinejad's arrival, and enthusiastically remarked that he found it "very useful."

- - -

Ahmadinejad Performed in Delhi

- - -

5. (C) Menon puzzled about Ahmadinejad's "self-congratulatory, self-referential" style, which he found particularly odd during an exchange about oil prices, during which Ahmadinejad bragged that the cost of oil would remain high. Ahmadinejad also bad-mouthed other countries, including China, which he claimed had put all its money in U.S. dollars and now had nothing left. As a result, Menon judged, "we assume he speaks badly about us to other countries." Menon also noted that Ahmadinejad refrained from direct attacks on Israel, and did not bring up the Indian launch of an Israeli satellite nor the U.S.-India relationship. Overall, Menon assessed, Ahmadinejad appeared to have performed in Delhi for his domestic audience, showing Iranian voters that he can still travel and interact with other countries.

- - -

Expect Senior-Level Criticism, Ambassador Warns

- - -

6. (C) The Ambassador underlined that Americans, particularly members of Congress, will view Ahmadinejad's visit as India providing a platform for an enemy of the U.S. Members of Congress and the Administration strongly believe that Ahmadinejad is guilty of killing Americans in Iraq, developing a nuclear weapons program to blackmail the world, and sponsoring international terrorist activities, the Ambassador outlined. Moreover, the U.S. has maintained a long-term alliance with Israel, which Ahmadinejad has called for "wiping off the face of the earth," the Ambassador added. The average American will wonder why the U.S. has gone out of its way to have a nuclear cooperation initiative with India, when India is so friendly to Iran, he warned. "I cannot predict what the effect of this visit will be," he cautioned, but noted that he expected the Ahmadinejad stop to exercise those members of Congress who have gone out of their way on India's behalf.

- - -

Nothing Should Upset You, Menon Presses

- - -

7. (C) Menon responded that "there is nothing in this visit that should upset you." He emphasized that the Indian government had little choice to say yes when the Iranian government requested a stop in transit. Moreover, Menon explained, India and Iran need to talk about Afghanistan and energy issues. "We can talk with him without affecting our other relationships," Menon contended, and cited the strong India-Israel relationship that withstood India's flirtation with Iran. Menon also cautioned the U.S. against telling India what to do, especially in public. "This government has to be seen following an independent foreign policy, not responding to dictation from the U.S.," he stated. He recognized that Iran presents a global problem, and the U.S. and India differ in how to fix the situation because of geography. For instance, Menon pressed, India must work with Iran to deal with Afghanistan.

- - -

Ambassador Asks If India Is Ready for Prime Time

- - -

NEW DELHI 00001194 003 OF 003

8. (C) The Ambassador recounted that the U.S. government and Congress stood up for India by passing the Hyde Act because they believed that as a rising power, India must come into the global nonproliferation system. However, the Ambassador posited, those supporters will wonder if India is ready for prime time since it "let the enemy in and did not stand up and say, 'don't do this.'" Menon countered that such a position sounded like what the Communists have accused the U.S. of doing. The Ambassador clarified that the Communists suspect the Indian and U.S. governments of trading foreign policies in a clandestine cabal, when in this case, the Ambassador simply wished to make the Indian government aware of the possible repercussions that come from hosting the hostile Ahmadinejad.

- - -

Comment: India and Iran Relationship Needs No U.S. Interference

- - -

9. (C) By providing Ahmadinejad with a platform to berate the U.S., the Indian government has attempted to prove that it has an independent foreign policy, as the Communist critics have demanded since India's first vote against Iran in the IAEA in 2005. By kowtowing to political concerns, India has put at risk its image of an emerging, responsible major player in the world. We have warned the Indian government quietly about the implications, but sharp, public comments from the U.S. government will only push India and Iran closer together. MULFORD

US embassy cables: Don't tell us what to do, India warns US | World news | guardian.co.uk

[unknownprince]

^ I take my words on India back. Thats big news. India needs to recognize the proper government in Afghansitan, not the US-Karzai joke crack gang of failures.

What they need is MK Bhadrakumar to be their leader to steer them away from slavery to the US.

[Maulik]

why don't they listen to MK Bhadrakumar? Why are they supporting US war against Afghanistan? Why did they support Soviet war against Afghanistan?

yeah, it would be nice if the Indian slave government listened to its people.

BUT it does not, it is a doormat for America. No one in Asia cared about Hillary Clinton, and India threw a big party for her.

India is just like Pakistan and Kabul.

can u provide any source about india supporting Soviet invasion of afghanistan? Indira gandhi, was PM at that time ,and she was strongly against soviet invasion.as far as party matter is concerned, The world politics success mantra is purely business/shared interest rather than feelings/brotherhood..

[Maulik]

India refuses US offer for Madrassa teachers

New Delhi, Feb 4 (IBNS) The Indian Government has turned down an American offer to provide experts for teaching English in the Indian Madrassas.

The Human Resources Development department has flatly refused the US proposal of sending Americans to teach English to the Madtrassa schools in various parts of the country.

The US proposal, which came through the ministry of External Affairs, has been rejected on the ground that the Indian government does not want to interfere in the functioning of Madrassas.

"Our policy is of non-interference. The Indian government does not play any proactive role and simply monitors educational schemes for Muslims through its minority cell," Times of India reported quoting the HRD sources as saying.

In India many Madrassas, where Urdu is taught, have already started teaching English.

India has about 7,000 registered Madrassas with some 3.5 lakh students on their rolls.

Another reason, though unstated, is the fear of evoking a political outcry.

"US is seen as an aggressor by Muslims. Any attempt to bring American teachers in madrassas would have been seen as interference," a source was quoted as saying.

India refuses US offer for Madrassa teachers

[unknownprince]

their support for the Soviet war is well known- no suprise.

Ok, if everything is business, then one day if your country is starving, someone can tell you it is business.

One day, if a future leader who controls the global oil supply refuses to sell you oil, then tell yourself it is business.

Such possibilities are not impossible

[Maulik]

GoI had strongly condemned the illegal invasion of Afghanistan by USSR in 1979..as far as gulf arab are concerned, india enjoyes excellent relations. .posting some links

[Maulik]

DUBAI: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as the country's largest trading partner in term of total trade exchange in the first half of 2010, says a media report.

"The UAE is India's largest trading partner in terms of India's total trade exchange in the first half of the current year," the Emirates News Agency said, citing a report by the analysis and trade information department at the ministry of foreign trade.

Non-oil trade exchange between the UAE and India grew by 57 per cent to reach USD 20.4 billion in the first half of 2010, according to the report by the analysis and trade information department at the ministry of foreign trade (moft) quoted by the agency.

The report is released on the occasion India's President Pratibha Devisingh Patil five-day visit to the UAE.

MoFT's survey revealed a positive shift from a trade deficit during the first quarter of 2009 worth about USD 2.9 billion. This has now changed to a surplus of USD 571 million during the first half of 2010.

According to the figures, the UAE-India trade deficit is shrinking by 120 per cent as UAE's total non-oil exports to the sub-continent have grown by 75 per cent to reach USD 4 billion in the first half of this year.

The study, prepared by researcher Yousef Diab and was supervised by Mattar Ahmed, head of the analysis and trade information department at moft, expected the value of trade exchange between both countries to reach USD 32.7 billion in 2010 from USD 29.4 billion last year.

Value of Indian investments in the UAE in 2007 was USD 2.5 billion, which accounted for seven per cent of total foreign direct investment in the country.

Similarly, the report noted, UAE companies invested up to USD 1.5 billion in the country over last year. It is expected that FDI investment by UAE firms will reach USD 1.9 billion by 2011.

Interestingly, the UAE's FDI investment in India is the largest among the Arab countries as well as 10th largest globally.

The UAE's non-oil exports to India grew by 75 per cent to reach USD 4 billion in the first half of 2010, compared to the same period of last fiscal.

The UAE investments in five major sectors of the Indian economy accounted for 48.6 per cent of the country's total direct investment in India for which the energy sector accounted for USD 263.7 million, followed by investment in the services sector at USD 143 million, software products (USD 115 million), construction (USD 99.2 million) and tourism and hotels at (USD 84 million).

Read more: UAE is India's largest trading partner: Report - The Times of India UAE is India's largest trading partner: Report - The Times of India

[Maulik]

Saudi Arabia to double exports of crude oil to India - The National

Saudi Arabia has agreed to double its crude oil exports to India in a move that would reduce the Asian country's dependence on Iranian crude.

Annual Indian crude imports from the kingdom could rise to more than 800,000 barrels per day, an Indian official said yesterday in Riyadh on the sidelines of a Saudi energy conference.

"India appreciates the role of the kingdom as an important and reliable energy partner," said the official, who is on the staff of the Indian embassy in Riyadh.

"Both countries are also working to diversify their seller-buyer relationship into a strategic energy partnership."

An Indian-Saudi energy alliance has been in the works for at least 18 months.

In February last year, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah paid a historic visit to New Delhi, becoming the first Saudi head of state to visit India, which has hostile relations with the kingdom's long-held Muslim ally Pakistan.

The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh reciprocated by visiting Riyadh the following month.

Analysts said Riyadh wanted India's help in containing al Qa'eda activity in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They also suggested the kingdom was seeking to weaken its regional rival Iran by supplying crude that India would otherwise need to import from Tehran.

"Through oil diplomacy, Saudi Arabia hopes to sap Iran of important regional partners, a diplomatic coup the US and other western nations have so far failed to achieve," Aaron Mattis wrote in the Harvard International Review.

On the other hand, economic imperatives have proved more than sufficient for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil exporters to strengthen trade ties with other rapidly developing Asian nations such as China and South Korea.

Oil consumption in those countries, along with India, has risen sharply since 2008, even as it has fallen in the developed world.

By last August, the Saudi-Indian energy initiative was gathering momentum.

"Opportunities exist to strengthen ties in investment between India and Saudi Arabia," Ali al Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said on the sidelines of a meeting of Asian oil buyers.

The kingdom was keen on entering into a 30-year oil supply contract with India, as it had done with several other countries, he added.

Last February, the Saudi Al Qahtani Sons group formed a joint venture with India's SledgeHammer Oil Tools to build a large manufacturing plant in Saudi Arabia for oilfield and drilling equipment.

"Many companies are looking for joint ventures.

"Such deals are important for expanding business in India and in Saudi Arabia," said Abdulrahman al Rabiah, the chairman of the Saudi-India Joint Business Council.

[unknownprince]

The problem with the Indian mind set is they think everything is static, and not kinetic.

The world is changing. It is not impossible that oil will not be controlled by one leader, or a few collectively. Nor is it impossible that those leaders won't be Arab.

If you think it is, then you have not read history too well.

Arabs can not rule if they can't even rule their own countries and support Israel (secretly) and war upon their brethren nations ALL THE TIME.