India in the International Media - Volume 9, February 24, 2003 

1. Vote France Off the Island
by Thomas L. Friedman
The New York Times

Why replace France with India? Because India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it's become silly. India has grown out of that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq, but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France can't see how the world has changed since the end of the cold war. India can.

2. Arms Makers See Great Potential in India Market
By Saritha Rai
The New York Times

Leading military equipment makers from around the globe are aggressively promoting their products to India's huge defense market, with its $100 billion in expected spending in the next decade.

Vote France Off The Island By Thomas L. Friedman The New York Times February 10, 2003 Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen like the starting five for the N.B.A. All-Star team — with a vote by the fans. If so, I would certainly vote France off the Council and replace it with India. Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That's more like it. Why replace France with India? Because India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it's become silly. India has grown out of that game. India may be ambivalent about war in Iraq, but it comes to its ambivalence honestly. Also, France can't see how the world has changed since the end of the cold war. India can. Throughout the cold war, France sought to differentiate itself by playing between the Soviet and American blocs. France could get away with this entertaining little game for two reasons: first, it knew that Uncle Sam, in the end, would always protect it from the Soviet bear. So France could tweak America's beak, do business with Iraq and enjoy America's military protection. And second, the cold war world was, we now realize, a much more stable place. Although it was divided between two nuclear superpowers, both were status quo powers in their own way. They represented different orders, but they both represented order. That is now gone. Today's world is also divided, but it is increasingly divided between the "World of Order" — anchored by America, the E.U., Russia, India, China and Japan, and joined by scores of smaller nations — and the "World of Disorder." The World of Disorder is dominated by rogue regimes like Iraq's and North Korea's and the various global terrorist networks that feed off the troubled string of states stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia. How the World of Order deals with the World of Disorder is the key question of the day. There is room for disagreement. There is no room for a lack of seriousness. And the whole French game on Iraq, spearheaded by its diplomacy-lite foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, lacks seriousness. Most of France's energy is devoted to holding America back from acting alone, not holding Saddam Hussein's feet to the fire to comply with the U.N. The French position is utterly incoherent. The inspections have not worked yet, says Mr. de Villepin, because Saddam has not fully cooperated, and, therefore, we should triple the number of inspectors. But the inspections have failed not because of a shortage of inspectors. They have failed because of a shortage of compliance on Saddam's part, as the French know. The way you get that compliance out of a thug like Saddam is not by tripling the inspectors, but by tripling the threat that if he does not comply he will be faced with a U.N.-approved war. Mr. de Villepin also suggested that Saddam's government pass "legislation to prohibit the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction." (I am not making this up.) That proposal alone is a reminder of why, if America didn't exist and Europe had to rely on France, most Europeans today would be speaking either German or Russian. I also want to avoid a war — but not by letting Saddam off the hook, which would undermine the U.N., set back the winds of change in the Arab world and strengthen the World of Disorder. The only possible way to coerce Saddam into compliance — without a war — is for the whole world to line up shoulder-to-shoulder against his misbehavior, without any gaps. But France, as they say in kindergarten, does not play well with others. If you line up against Saddam you're just one of the gang. If you hold out against America, you're unique. "France, it seems, would rather be more important in a world of chaos than less important in a world of order," says the foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World." If France were serious about its own position, it would join the U.S. in setting a deadline for Iraq to comply, and backing it up with a second U.N. resolution authorizing force if Iraq does not. And France would send its prime minister to Iraq to tell that directly to Saddam. Oh, France's prime minister was on the road last week. He was out drumming up business for French companies in the world's biggest emerging computer society. He was in India.

Arms Makers See Great Potential in India Market By Saritha Rai The New York Times February 12, 2003 BANGALORE, India, Feb. 11 — Leading military equipment makers from around the globe are aggressively promoting their products to India's huge defense market, with its $100 billion in expected spending in the next decade.   Scores of companies converged in Bangalore last week for Aero India 2003, a trade show held every two years for aircraft and military companies. They included companies from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and Israel — countries that dominate the global military supplies trade. American companies had missed the last two shows because of sanctions imposed by President Clinton. Those sanctions have been lifted by President Bush.   Manufacturers are also pursuing contracts to supply other Asian nations with combat aircraft. According to news reports in the region, Singapore is negotiating to take part in developing the American-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to buy several dozen of the jets, while Malaysia is talking to Boeing and Sukhoi of Russia about new orders. The most aggressive battle at the trade show here was among military aircraft makers from Britain, Russia and the United States over a multibillion-dollar order to supply 66 advanced jet trainers to the Indian military. The Indian defense minister, George Fernandes, indicated at the show that India's government was about to make a final decision on the purchase.   The jets under consideration include the Hawk ZJ100 from BAE Systems of Britain, the MIG-AT from Russia and the L159B trainer made by the Czech state-run company Aero Vodochody, which is 35 percent owned by the Boeing Company. Lockheed Martin indicated that it might bid with its T-50 being co-developed with South Korea. Russia, which has been India's leading supplier of military equipment, holds more than half of the Indian market.   "There aren't any large markets for American defense companies to sell to, bar India and China," said Air Marshal Philip Rajkumar, director of the Aeronautical Development Agency, an autonomous body under India's defense department that is developing the light combat aircraft. "With Americans wary of China, India really is the only market."   Given India's recent hostilities with Pakistan, the country is equipping itself for both conventional and nuclear warfare, with a substantial military budget. This year, for instance, India has allotted 650 billion rupees ($17 billion) for military spending. "The attractive market is making companies push very hard," said Dr. V. S. Arunachalam, former military adviser to the Indian government and now a professor at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.   India imported military equipment worth $7.2 billion from 1998 to 2001, second only to the United Arab Emirates, which bought $10.8 billion in that period. In the next decade, India is expected to be the world's largest importer.   There is considerable competition to fill India's civilian aircraft needs as well, with the world's two main builders of passenger jets, Airbus Industrie, which is based in France, and Boeing vying for India's growing passenger airline market.   Representatives of the two companies attended last week's trade show here not only to market their planes but to lobby the Indian government, which runs the country's two biggest airlines, Indian Airlines and Air India. Both airlines are contemplating large purchases. Indian Airlines and Airbus agreed to a $2.1 billion, 43-plane deal in March but have not yet received government approval.   The French prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, and the British defense procurement minister, Lord Bach, led their countries' delegations. They also lobbied for military orders, hoping to take market share from Russia.   United States foreign policy has until recently restricted sales to India by American makers of military hardware, because the country had developed nuclear weapons. But relations between the countries have shifted significantly. Restrictions on supplying military equipment have been lifted; the two nations even held joint military exercises last year.   According to an Indian military official, India has a wish list of equipment from the United States, including high-altitude aircraft made by Lockheed Martin, Lockheed's precision-guided munitions or smart bombs, and surveillance equipment from Raytheon and other manufacturers.   "But anything we want from the United States goes through a very complex process," said Dr. Arunachalam, the Carnegie Mellon professor. "Between most countries, trade improves politics. But with the case of the U.S. and India, policy guides trade and technology transfer."   Other countries are also determined not to waste any sales opportunities. Russia hopes to sell India its Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier this year, as well as fighter jets, anti-submarine helicopters, long-range bombers and multiple-launching rocket systems. France is negotiating to sell 6 Scorpene submarines and 130 Mirage-2000H fighters. Israel is offering its Phalcon early-warning radar systems.   American makers of military equipment have been eager to join the race. The first major sale has already been struck, with Raytheon signing a $142.4 million deal to supply AN/TPQ-37 weapon-locating radars. The company presented its missile defense and naval systems at the Bangalore trade show.   "The potential in this market is significant," said Dennys S. Plessas, a vice president of Lockheed Martin, which wants to sell its C-130J Hercules heavy-lift aircraft and the P-3 Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft to India. Lockheed is also offering its F-16 fighters to replace India's aged MIG-21 fighter jets, in competition with the French Mirage-2000 jets.   And many Indian officials say the American companies are likely to get their share. "The door between India and the United States was firmly closed, but it is now beginning to open," said Dr. V. K. Atre, scientific adviser to India's defense minister. "By the end of 2003, there should be a lot of positive movement."

India In International Media

Ministry Of External Affairs, India