Canada for closer military ties with India

[AIC_2K5]

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14607388


Canada for closer military ties with India

Tuesday, 19 February , 2008, 20:53 

New Delhi: Canada is seeking to ramp up military ties with India, saying this would be beneficial for both countries.

"We look to expand our level of cooperation. By that I mean the exchange of military personnel. We hope to have more slots available for training both in Canada and here," visiting Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said.

"We've had a greater presence of the Canadian Navy here in doing cooperative operations (like the Malabar series of war games). To that extent, we see a lot of mutual benefits in working closely with India at the defence level," MacKay told IANS in an interview.

He is in India at the head of a large business delegation to conduct seminars and workshops here and in Mumbai to promote Canada's east coast ports as the Atlantic Gateway to North America.

"Ports on Canada's east coast are 36 hours closer from the Suez Canal than New York. What this means is that goods that are offloaded at an Atlantic Gateway port will have reached the US Midwest before your competitor's ship would have docked at New York," explained MacKay, who is also the minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA).

During his stay here, MacKay has also met his Indian counterpart A.K. Antony and National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan.

"Our talks were very cordial. We discussed how we could raise our defence ties to our mutual benefit," the minister said.

The Canadian Navy participated for the first time in the annual Malabar joint drill in 2006 along with the Indian Navy, the Indian Army, and the US Navy, Marines and Coast Guard.

The Canadian Navy participated as part of the USS Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group (BOXESG). The exercise focused on strengthening ties between the three forces, increasing interoperability, and enhancing their cooperative security relationship, as they worked together to fight terrorism, respond to natural disasters, and combat nuclear proliferation.

India and Canada have also established a Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism (JWGCT) in New Delhi that meets annually.

"I think we can learn a great deal from India, from your long experience in dealing with terrorism," MacKay noted.

Set up in 1997, the group "has evolved its agenda over the years to strengthen the India-Canada partnership on counter-terrorism", a Canadian High Commission official explained.

"It seeks to increase the complementarity of the ongoing efforts in both countries to deal with various aspects of terrorism by strengthening capacity and policy frameworks against the menace of terrorism," he added.

Significantly, the meetings of the group continued uninterrupted despite the frostiness in India-Canada ties after New Delhi tested a nuclear device in May 1998.

 

[a_majoor]

The start of the "Anglosphere" alliance?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect the Indian military is looking for a more reliable supplier of specialized military hardware, the Indian military could represent a huge customer for certain items, imagine if they started to buy the LAV!

 

[Flip]

Well, if we can't count on Pakistan... :

Can you imagine the manpower resources?

I wonder if an agreement to agree ( with India ) on Afghanistan will make
Pakistan a better ally or a worse one?  That is, will Pakistan cooperate with
India (on Afghanistan) or will they become difficult?

 

[CougarKing]

The start of the "Anglosphere" alliance?

All the more reason to make the Commonwealth a military alliance instead of just a club for former British territories and dominions. Maybe the US should head/join such an "Anglo-alliance".

 

[AIC_2K5]

Where I am baffled by this is in the hypocrisy of how we can snub our noses at China on the grounds of a shotty human rights record and then get all cozy with India and just overlook the attrocities committed by Indian military and paramilitary forces in Kashmir (not the sweater). While India has been involved in a counter-insurgency war there for decades, they have carried it out through a scorched-earth campaign. Indian troops have raped and killed thousands of Muslims in Kashmir, but this little tidbit is always swept under the rug within political circles. These human rights attrocities notwithstanding, the basic question of the international legality of this little forgotten war is prominent. Just like how we viewed Afghanistan and all its human rights violations with contempt before 9/11, the world was always neutral in this conflict and viewed it as Indian internal affairs. Indeed, some US administrations saw the Muslim insurgents as freedom fighters. 9/11 changed all of that and the Kashmir insurgents - alongisde those fighting in Asia-Pacific countries - were all swept under the same muslim-extremist terrorist brand as Al Qaeda and automatically declared war on by the US and the West. This sort of ignorance is giving the fundamentalists the ammunition they seek to fuel their jihad. It's these sorts of issues that we have to take a deeper look into and, as a country, we need to closely examine all of our related policies if we want to win the long war.

Aside from that, I am confused over this sudden enthusiasm for closer military ties when - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - we share little real common defence interests (I geuss they may be thinking about the 'common' terrorist threat). Economic interents, for sure, we need a counterweight against China. Diplomatic interests, definetly, it's hard to sidestep the second most populus country on the planet with this in mind. But aside from maybe ensuring the greater region safe for maritime trading routes, what gives?

 

[a_majoor]

Teaming up with India is just common sense. India shares many things in common with Canada and other Commonwealth nations, as well as the United States. All these nations were heavily influenced by the British Empire and British cultural assumptions about Liberty, Property Rights and the Rule of Law. China has differing cultural interpretations of these which are at odds with our values, hence there is a possibility of a clash between China and the Anglosphere West.

While India may not have a stellar record on some issues, people can point fingers at us as well. It makes more sense to work with people who share most of your values and assumptions, and it also provides more leverage in the long run to address issues like Kashmir. (Ask yourself how successful we will be dealing with China's treatment of Tibet when we only share limited economic interests?).

In an imperfect world, we need to take the best from a limited range of choices rather than hope for perfection.

 

[observor 69]

I can see the military benefit from a possible gain in intel and a broader understanding of the relationship between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
But where is our Dept.of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in all this ? My understanding from the comments of many is that our DFA has been gutted by Harper and governments before him. Our dealings with NATO countries and understanding of the actions of many other foreign countries as they affect Canada is helped by having a strong competent DFA.

 

[Flip]

When there is bleating from the left that we should make our efforts in the war on
terrorism more international - this is the big payoff.

India and Canada are dealing with Sikh terrorism and Islamist terrorism.
India is also a counterbalance to Iran in that region and the Islamist
elements in Pakistan.  Pakistan now has to choose a side.
They are no longer in a position to just leave the tribal territories alone.

India also possesses huge manpower resources.
If a border can be sealed Manpower is required.

India doesn't have to jump in to affect change.
( I think )the threat that they might will alter the course of Pakistan's involvement.

 

[a_majoor]

Short term thinking, my friend. India and Pakistan are historic enemies, and there is the potential that strenthening Inia's hand will drive Pakistan deeper in the other direction. In fact, Pakistan is thought to have an interest in using Afghainstan as strategic depth in the event of another war with India, hence the interest of the ISI in subverting the Muhajedeen in the 1980's (through selective support of Muhajedeen factions) and their support of the Taliban in the 1990's. The internal situation in Pakistan is chaotic enough, I don't think "we" have anything to bring to the table to improve things in the short term.

We need to look longer term, and you have indicated some of the net benefits: counterbalancing Iran in the South West Asia and China in East Asia, as well as other potential benefits like keeping the Indian ocean free for trade, and access to a vast new markets, capital and talent pools. Getting closer to a potential 21rst century superpower with shared values can't hurt us.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hence the reason that Pakistan objects to Indian troops being used by the UN  or NATO in Afghanistan. They do seem to work well together in Africa though. India offers Canada far more than Pakistan ever will. Pakistan will likely b heavily involved internally for the next decade, India has the depth to hold both the Chinese and the Kashmir issues at arms length and concentrate on more political, trade and econmic issues.