PROGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH GOI;

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 006086 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/25/2026 TAGS: PREL PGOV PINR PINS MARR MASS MCAP KSTC IN SUBJECT: PROGRESS ON MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH GOI; POLITICAL RATHER THAN TECHNICAL BENEFITS FOR U.S. Classified By: D/PolCouns Atul Keshap for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In an August 30 meeting the GOI revealed that it currently has no Missile Defense capabilities - at least none it is willing to share - yet wants to pursue further R&D cooperation with the U.S. India will participate in the September 18-19 multinational BMD conference in London, and will send approximately seven delegates to Colorado Springs December 5-7 for further SIMEX planning. The meeting's purpose was to further clarify planning details for the proposed Missile Defense Simulation Exercise (SIMEX) to take place in India. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Chief Controller, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) gave a presentation which revealed nothing about India's current MD capabilities, and he admitted under direct questioning that India has not gone beyond the R & D stage in MD capability, adding that he felt that they had made most progress in software support. Regardless, India remains quite interested in continuing MD exchanges, with MEA Director Naveen Srivastava (Disarmament and Int'l Security) closing the proceedings by saying India "looks forward to opportunities for more cooperation in the future." FUTURE MEETINGS PLANNED: -------------- ¶3. (C) Srivastava confirmed that the GOI will be sending delegates to the London Ballistic Missile Defense conference September 18 and 19. He said he will provide the names of those delegates no later than September 6. ¶4. (C) The U.S. delegation extended an invitation to the DRDO officials to visit Colorado Springs December 5-7 for one more planning meeting, to which the Indians agreed to send seven delegates. In addition, The JNIC representatives extended a personal invitation from Dr. Armstrong, the JNIC chief, to meet with Dr. Saraswat, who accepted. ¶5. (C) Guthrie said that due to the extra time needed to implement design enhancements to improve the quality of the SIMEX, he proposed postponing the SIMEX until late March ¶2007. Srivastava agreed to the date change. Guthrie asked the Indians to confirm if the exercise was to take place in New Delhi, and Dr. Saraswat replied that they preferred keeping it in Hyderabad, mostly for security reasons. Both Srivastava and Dr. Saraswat stressed that they do not wish any policy makers to be present at the SIMEX, because they felt this would necessitate limiting the format to a less technical level than desired. ¶6. (C) Srivastava asked several probing questions about the exact level of U.S. cooperation with Japan on Missile Defense. He asked about our SM3 cooperation with Japan, and Dr. Saraswat followed immediately with a very technical question about the SM3 cooperation. Srivastava then asked "Are you only doing R & D cooperation with Japan, or also development?" Schoenewolf replied that the U.S. does some logistical cooperation with the Japanese in addition to R&D, since we have conducted joint tests with them and need to transport and store our missile equipment in Japan at such times. ¶7. (C) Representing the U.S. were 6 officials and scientists from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Joint National Integration Center (JNIC),led by John Schoenewolf and Chuck Guthrie, and on the GOI side, 10 officials led by MEA Director Naveen Srivastava (Disarmament and Int'l Security) and Dr. V.K. Saraswat, Chief Controller, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). NEW DELHI 00006086 002 OF 002 ¶8. (S) COMMENT: As the Indians readily admit, they have no current missile defense capabilities, meaning that any technological cooperation may be completely one-sided and only to their benefit. They claim to have made great progress in their software development for MD, so this is one possible benefit for us; yet even so, at this time any advantage we may gain is probably limited to political goodwill with the GOI. It was disappointing to note that the Indian delegation preferred to keep these talks at the technical level for now, avoiding bringing in policy level participants, and the Indian suggestion to hold next year's exercise in Hyderabad instead of New Delhi was probably their attempt to distance themselves physically from policy-level participation. It was interesting to note the great fascination both the MEA and the DRDO have for our cooperation with the Japanese. The timing and detail of both Srivastava 's and Saraswat's questions, both following each other rapidly, suggests that they want to play at that level. END COMMENT. MULFORD