Posted on 05/09/2007 1:21:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
India's Naval Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehra has embarked on a nine-day tour of Burma and Singapore to give a leg up to bilateral ties and military cooperation with the neighbouring countries. His visit begins on Wednesday.
Heading a high level naval delegation, the Navy Chief delegation will hold talks with top leaders of the ruling Burmese military junta during his stay in Rangoon.
"The issue of arms transfer to Myanmar is likely to figure prominently during the Naval Chief's parleys with SDPC members," a former naval officer and currently director of India's leading think tank told Mizzima News on condition of anonymity.
India recently supplied Burma with two Islander Naval surveillance aircraft as well as small naval gun boats and light artillery guns as part of its effort to strengthen military ties with Burma.
The strategic importance of Burma in the Indian Ocean has made India look towards naval cooperation with Burma. A number of Indian naval personnel have been visiting Burma off late. Former Indian Naval Chief Admiral Madhvendera Singh had visited the key Burma naval base of Coco Islands in 2003. His successor former Admiral Arun Prakash had visited Burma in January 2006 where he presented a consignment of communication equipment to his counterpart.
Admiral Mehra is the second Indian Navy Chief to visit Burma in a year's time. He will tour Singapore after his visit to Burma , to attend the International Maritime exhibition. The Indian Navy has sent two warships to take part in the exhibition.
Cooperation between India and Burmese navies seems to be forgoing ahead. Two Indian warships, INS Ranjit and ISN Kuthar did joint naval maneuvers with the Burmese Navy in December 2005. The Indian warships' visit to Burma ports was the third, in the past three years.
In December 2002, an Indian naval fleet, comprising a submarine and two destroyers, berthed at the Rangoon Port. Then in September 2003, two more Indian warships carried out four-day joint naval maneuvers with the Burmese Navy. In exchange, a Burmese corvette docked at Port Blair to take part in "Milan 2006." This was the first time in four decades that a Burmese ship had visited a foreign port.
(Just kidding people...)
Myanmar is often perceived to be a buffer state between the two Asian giants of India and China. Its strategic location provides Myanmar with an opportunity to play a significant role in the geopolitics of South and Southeast Asia. In addition, the availability of natural gas in Myanmar gives an economic dimension to its strategic significance. Myanmar shares a 1640 km-long land and maritime boundary with India, making it a crucial element of India’s security calculus and ensuring that amicable relations with Myanmar are vital.
During Indira Gandhi’s tenure, India was largely neutral and disinterested in Myanmar, because a “commitment to democratic values” was prioritized ahead of “security concerns” in the Indian foreign policy agenda towards Myanmar. This policy of idealism was also continued by Rajiv Gandhi. When the SLORC assumed power in Myanmar in 1988, India under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi extended its moral support to the pro-democracy movement and offered refuge to the people of Myanmar who migrated to India to flee military suppression.
A paradigm shift in India’s policy towards Myanmar was seen during the 1990s when India decided to court the junta. For example, Indian Foreign Secretary J N Dixit’s 1993 visit to Yangon culminated in an agreement to control drug trafficking. This shift in India’s policy was propelled by three main factors. First, owing to Myanmar’s isolation from the rest of the world, Chinese influence in Myanmar was increasing. India was concerned about this relative gain of China in Myanmar because it potentially paved the way for a possible encirclement of India by China through three pro-Chinese regimes in the neighbourhood - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Second, in order to counter the emerging non-traditional security threats in northeast India, coordination with Myanmar was essential. Third, India started its “Look East” policy in 1991, intended to increase engagement with ASEAN, and Myanmar was the only ASEAN member which shared a border with India. Thus Myanmar was seen as a gateway to ASEAN by Indian policymakers.
Due to these changing dynamics, India accordingly adopted a new pragmatic policy in relation with Myanmar. Nonetheless, India’s decision to honour Aung San Suu Kyi with the Jawaharlal Nehru award indicated that idealism still abounded in India’s foreign policy. In fact, the National Front government put human rights considerations and the restoration of democracy at the top of its policy agenda towards Myanmar.
India sells weapons to Burma to counter Chinese influence? Why not apply the same policy to Nepal then? Oh yeah, they don’t have any natural gas to sell India like Burma does.
Nepal doesn’t have ambitions of allowing Chinese to set up bases, like in Myanmar.
Pick and choose. ‘Splain me why Saudi Arabia gets American arms, often potent ones.
So if the King invites the Chinese to set up a military base, then you will take his side against the maoists? His mistake then was that he was not pro-Chinese enough?
Sort of. Things ain’t black and white. Now explain why Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth, by America.
“not apply the same policy to Nepal then?”
We do sell weapons to Nepal. We did so for quite a long time. We have resumed arms supply to the current government. Only Gyanendra was stupid enough to switch over to the Chinese side that irked India.
Even the US sell arms to despots and dictators to counter communist influence. Again the US is a past master in the game.
He tried to play his China card, thought he could scare Indians into agreeing with his deranged behaviour. India did not comply. He then turned to the Chinese.
The deranged and genocidal Burmese junta played their China card and India complied with their every demand.
On the contrary the Burmes are complying with our demand to take out the NLFT terrorists in the North East. So far they has done an excellent job. For a long time Burma had be almost a satellite Chinese state and we are doing well to whittle they away from Chinese influence. The Burmese are also trying for a balance in their relationship with both India and China.
Gyanendra on the other had was stupid enough to think he can show India the finger and get away.
Tell me honestly, who do you really expect India to choose between India-fiendly-communists and a pro-China anti-India dictator?
How again did he “show India the finger?” How did he “play the China card?” Please, no euphemisms, what exactly are you talking about, or do you even know?
You are a complete moron if you think the maoists are India-friendly. India’s pro-maoist communists in the CPIM are indeed pawns of China and traitors to India. Indians will suffer greatly due to their treachery, in both Nepal and in India.
If India picked the maoist side then why was India supplying Nepal with weaponry long before Gyanendra came to power. Why did India stop the supply only after Gyanendra assumed power? Care to answer that?
“Then while they still had an embargo on Nepal, India sold weapons to the maoists. “
Oh so now you are accusing India of supporting terrorism huh? India sold weapons to the maoists? Can you prove it?
“You say you know more than me, but you still haven’t proved it.”
No sir. I dont do other’s home work. You prove to me that Gyanendra was actually doing India’s bidding.
And here’s your proof Gyanendra was receiving arms supply after “India, Britain and the United States halted arms supplies”. Proof that Gyanendra was playing the Chicom card. Gyanendra had allied with the Chicoms and was receiving weapons from them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4105036.stm
“You say you know, but you sure don’t sound like you know at all.”
I have spent more time reading about world affairs then the time you have spent inside a toilet. Give it a rest.
OK now you provide me with the proof that India was supply weapons to Maoists.
You prove to me that Gyanendra was actually doing India’s bidding.
Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. I said Gyanendra refused to do India's bidding. You said India refused to do his bidding. How so?
And here’s your proof Gyanendra was receiving arms supply after “India, Britain and the United States halted arms supplies”.
Once again, that's exactly what I said happened. the king went to China to get weapons after India embargoed him. India sided against the King before he sought help from China. India's hostility to the Hindu King and support for the maoist terrorists was the cause of the King's turn toward China. India has seriously destabilized Nepal and the whole region with their support for the Maoist terrorists and has played right into China's hands.
I have a better “comprehension” of English then you even though English is not my first language.
Now lets see......
Form your article thats doesnt link to the original website anymore, it says:
“The Rising Nepal daily, the mouthpiece of the government headed by King Gyanendra, said the information was given to the Royal Nepalese Army by an ex-Maoist “combatant”. “
This “information” why given by an ex-Maoist “combatant” and reported by a government mouth piece (a government headed by King Gyanendra himself). (Yeah right I would take the word of a “ex-Maoist combatant” and believe in Gyanendra’s mouth piece newspaper. /sarc)
It also says:
“Defence experts agree communist guerrillas could be buying arms and ammunition either from criminal gangs in the neighbouring Indian states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, with whom Nepal shares an open border, as well as insurgent groups in India. “
You said “India” is supplying the maoists with arms and the article says “criminal gangs” and “insurgent groups” in India.
Again prove it to me “INDIA” is supplying them with arms Mr Liar. I am still wait for proof. Whats you are dishing out is your usual tactics of lies, deceit and propaganda.
I demand poof. You havent proved any of it yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.