US making enemies of friends..

[RichardE]

US cautions India against Syria oil deal

Indo-Asian News Service

New Delhi, January 28, 2006












Advertisement






Saying Syria was on "the wrong side of history", the US has cautioned India against going ahead with its decision to buy a Syrian oilfield along with China.

But US diplomats insist this is no pressure tactic on New Delhi.

"Our views on Syria are well known. A communication was made from our side to the Indian government early December conveying our objections to the oil deal," US embassy spokesman David Kennedy said.

Kennedy was referring to an aide memoire listing Washington's objections that was handed over to the Indian government by US diplomats.

In December, ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) and the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) jointly purchased a 37 per cent stake in the al-Furat oil and gas fields in Syria from Petro-Canada for $573 million.

"Syria has been on the wrong side of history. Increasingly, the rest of the Middle East is moving towards democracy and freedom. On the other hand, Syria has always supported terror," Kennedy said.

The aide memoire says: "Now is not the time to send mixed messages to the (Syrian government) either through investment deals or any form of economic or political reward to the Damascus regime."

The US has accused Syria of obstructing investigation into a probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and of continuing to instigate violence in Lebanon.

In view of the national furore sparked by US envoy David Mulford's remarks linking the success of the India-US nuclear deal to New Delhi's stand on Iran, Kennedy appeared to soft pedal Washington's objections to the India-China joint venture in Syria.

"It doesn't imply pressure. It reflects that we are important strategic partners and we have a good communication on all issues," he said.

"And this is the big difference about India-US relations now that we can talk on all these issues frankly. Not too long ago, we were not talking on global issues," he added.

"At the end of the day, India will make its own decisions in its national interest on any issue, whether it is Iran, Iraq or Syria. We respect that."

The Indian government has not reacted to the US aide memoire on the Syrian oil deal.

On Iran, however, the external affairs ministry ticked off the US ambassador and made it clear that it would decide on Tehran's nuclear programme on the basis of India's national interests.

So the US keeps pushing, other countries try to secure oil by legal...business means...instead of force and the US attempts to take a hardline. Wonder why they cautioned India and not China though?

 

[Steeplerot]

War with india, wow, what next? I can see pabster and them going on and on about radical ghandifacsists who are hell bent on destroying the world through evil unamerican meditation.

 

[jrenz]

Did either of you even read the article quoted? The US is not "making enemies of friends", nor is there the slightest shred of verbose in that article to even imply any sort of conflict.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Did either of you even read the article quoted? The US is not "making enemies of friends", nor is there the slightest shred of verbose in that article to even imply any sort of conflict.

The US has a "for us or against us" policy, and has had one since 9/11. It seems it is warning or re-interating India on this issue.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jrenz
Did either of you even read the article quoted? The US is not "making enemies of friends", nor is there the slightest shred of verbose in that article to even imply any sort of conflict.

The US has a "for us or against us" policy, and has had one since 9/11. It seems it is warning or re-interating India on this issue.

The article implies nothing of the sort. It's cautioning India against entering into deals with a known supporter or terrorist activities. It then goes on to state, "At the end of the day, India will make its own decisions in its national interest on any issue, whether it is Iran, Iraq or Syria. We respect that."

What's the issue again?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jrenz
Did either of you even read the article quoted? The US is not "making enemies of friends", nor is there the slightest shred of verbose in that article to even imply any sort of conflict.

The US has a "for us or against us" policy, and has had one since 9/11. It seems it is warning or re-interating India on this issue.

The article implies nothing of the sort. It's cautioning India against entering into deals with a known supporter or terrorist activities. It then goes on to state, "At the end of the day, India will make its own decisions in its national interest on any issue, whether it is Iran, Iraq or Syria. We respect that."

What's the issue again?

He said that after the backlash

In view of the national furore sparked by US envoy David Mulford's remarks linking the success of the India-US nuclear deal to New Delhi's stand on Iran, Kennedy appeared to soft pedal Washington's objections to the India-China joint venture in Syria.

So the sentence you stated had nothing to do with the orignal statement by the admin.

 

[sandorski]

Bad Syria! Blocking Investigations is teh Evil!!!!!

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: jrenz
Did either of you even read the article quoted? The US is not "making enemies of friends", nor is there the slightest shred of verbose in that article to even imply any sort of conflict.

The US has a "for us or against us" policy, and has had one since 9/11. It seems it is warning or re-interating India on this issue.

The article implies nothing of the sort. It's cautioning India against entering into deals with a known supporter or terrorist activities. It then goes on to state, "At the end of the day, India will make its own decisions in its national interest on any issue, whether it is Iran, Iraq or Syria. We respect that."

What's the issue again?

He said that after the backlash

In view of the national furore sparked by US envoy David Mulford's remarks linking the success of the India-US nuclear deal to New Delhi's stand on Iran, Kennedy appeared to soft pedal Washington's objections to the India-China joint venture in Syria.

So the sentence you stated had nothing to do with the orignal statement by the admin.

That remark, at least how it was given in the article, seems to be speaking of a completely seperate issue. The way it is worded is somewhat confusing, but surely no sane person can see this as any sort of aggressive act.

 

[Aimster]

India doesn't care what the U.S says

They have strong relations with Syria/Iran and pretty much the entire M.E