Who dares to defy US Dictation
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 22
Palash Biswas
CIA has all the relevant documents to expose any high profile Leader
of this sub continent anytime, though it failed to preempt Nuclear
explosions in India. CIA could not smell the Tehran event of making
US citizens hostage long before. It could not detect the rot within
as the Ultimate Attack executed in USA on 9/11.. But CIA managed well
so many coups in third world countries. It always could manage
elections anywhere.
Thus, no political party or personality in India may dare to defy
dictations from Washington!
US ambassador David Mulford on Friday lauded India's decision to move
ahead with the "historic" nuclear deal and said his government will
work closely with New Delhi in the IAEA, the NSG and the US Congress
to implement it "as quickly as possible". The deal will then go to
the 45-nation NSG who will decide on changing its guidelines to
favour global commerce with India. This will be followed by the
ratification of the deal by the US Congress to make it operational.
Democratic presidential candidate Barrack Obama supports a civilian
nuclear trade deal between India and the United States and would not
push for changes to it, an Indian news magazine quoted him as
saying.The communists this week withdrew support for the government,
which now faces a confidence vote despite moving to prop up its
position in parliament with the help of a regional party whose leader
backs the deal.
India must surmount other time-consuming hurdles before the end of
the Bush administration, including approval from U.N. atomic watchdog
governors and a 45-nation group that controls nuclear trade.
"I voted for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement because India is a
strong democracy and a natural strategic partner for the U.S. in the
21st century," he told Outlook magazine, according to a transcript
provided by the magazine on Friday.
His support may prove decisive if India fails to finalize the deal
before the end of President George W. Bush's term.
Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh shook hands on the
deal, which gives India access to U.S. nuclear resources and
technology for energy, in 2005. Since then it has been stalled by
opposition from the anti-U.S. communist allies of India's coalition
government, and at moments almost given up for dead.
If India misses the effective deadline of the November U.S.
elections, it may seek to revive the deal under the next
administration, although pessimists say it may have to agree to less
favorable terms.
But Obama said he was broadly happy with the current deal.
"The existing agreement effectively balanced a range of important
issues, from our strategic relationship with India to our non-
proliferation concerns to India's energy needs," he told the
magazine, which will publish the interview on Saturday.
Political Instability hovers on Indian Political galaxy this time so
strong and the most contradicting scene happens to be the general
belief that the UPA government would survive and the Indo US Nuclear
deal is going to be operationalised whatever may come! Rather the
Global ruling Class is engaged in obscene celebration of the
unprecedented success in decades to have the Indian Communists made
quite Irrelevant. Sensex expressed the mood very well while the
Market enlivened all of a sudden after plunging into the Hell for
such a long time. The Indian share Index reflected the Pro American
sentiment of getting over the Marxist Barriers in the way of
Continuous economic Reforms in the best interest of United states as
well as the ruling Brahminical hegemony.No one but the Left is to be
blamed for this crisis as they adopted the Capitalist ways to sustain
its Power bases in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala as well as the
Gestapo active on Grass root Level reversing its agendas of Land
reforms, Peasants` movement, Trade Union Movement and rural
development. Soviet demise might have worked overtime to eclipse the
Ideological logic as the Communists in India seemed to believe in the
Ultimate end of Communism and tried its best to cope with the New
Post Modern Apartheid white Hindu Zionist Galaxy order led by the War
Criminal President George Bush and his notorious gang. For long
seventeen years, since the implant of Dr Manmohan Singh as finance
minister of India with neo liberal policies and Agenda LPG, the Left
could not recognise the urgency to launch an anti Imperialist
Movement in this divided geopolitics bleeding.
The Left was over engaged in its agenda of Anti fascism targeted to
RSS. On the other hand, the communists supported the gang of Four Dr
Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Chidambarm and Ramoowalia as the
best comradors in colonisation of India with an annihilation
Indigenous Programme! The Constitution of India was being murdered.
Human rights and civil rights were violated vehemently. The ruling
Hegemony was translating all Rural Indigenous areas and Nationality
Regions in Perfect killing fields. Left never opposed Economic
Reforms and opted for Foreign capital and MNCs to create Singur and
Nandigram.Peasants` movement was finished long before. The Tarde
Union movement with single agenda of Economism suited best to LPG and
fire and Hire situation. that trade union movement was also
suspended. Strategic Military exercises were never resisted and the
accountability was limited in Press statements and token protest.
These communists are in no situation to launch a nation wide Mass
Movement anymore. Not even Sector wise. This helplessness of Indian
Hypocrite communists resulted in floor coordination with RSS to pull
down the government which they supported for more than four years!
In fact, In Indian Politics, No one dares to defy Washington
Dictations these days. Defence deals, Swiss Bank accounts, CIA links
have been always the breaking news for media.
United States of America is now strategically positioned to do any
damn thing in Indian Ocean region and Indian Ruling Hegemony allowed
it with active Zionist cooperation.
The greatest Irony of this dramatic crisis is that the Marxist anti
Imperialist Campaign depends much on RSS which is the greatest agent
of United States of America. So much so that it avoids to introduce a
No confidence motion in the Parliament involving Indo US Nuclear
deal. Rather, RSS is using this unexpected opportunity to expose the
Marxists.If the UPA government stays despite Marxist Betrayal, it
would wipe out the Marxists in the next Elections. RSS is well
positioned to play the game of wait and see! RSS never happens to be
against UNITED States Of AMERICA as it supports most the War Against
Terrorism and the agenda of Zionist Super Power Hindu Nation depends
so much on USA.
The role played by the Socialists may be also cited as the classic
case of US influence amongst the Feudal Socialist Oxides and the
Zionist Gandhian carbides. socialists have been well known to launch
agitations most suitable to US interests. The socialist Total
Revolution upset the apple Cart of Mrs Indira Gandhi, the most hated
foe in Washington in seventies.
The taming of Mulayam, the most headstrong politician is being
analysed with his relationship with the dalit supremo Mayawati. I am
sure , Mulayam would not have been so soft for the Italian government
without any dictation from Washington.
The Congress sought to take the high moral ground in the face of a
mounting attack by the BJP and the Left parties by emphasising that
if the government loses the trust vote in the Lok Sabha "it would not
seek the approval of India-specific safeguards from the IAEA Board of
Governors".
The nuclear deal's opponents have charged the government
with "political deceit" for going back on its promise of approaching
the IAEA only after obtaining the vote of confidence. But Congress
spokespersons and officials in the Foreign Office denied any
contradiction between New Delhi's request for a meeting of the Board
and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's July 8 assurance
that the "government would operationalise civil nuclear cooperation
and seek approval of the Board of Governors only after obtaining a
vote of confidence in Parliament".
"The letter sent to the IAEA is for a meeting of the Board and not
for approval of the agreement," a top MEA official said. Even this
communication to the nuclear watchdog was made hours after the Left
parties announced withdrawal of support and shot off a letter to
Mukherjee on July 8.
The Minister conveyed the Left's decision to the PM, then in the
midst of the G-8 summit, around 2.30 pm IST, after which the
Department of Atomic Energy, under Manmohan Singh's charge, set the
process into motion. The sources furnished this time-line with the
information that Vienna was three-and-half hour behind IST.
The Left parties had, in their letter, termed as "meaningless" the
proposed final meeting of the UPA-Left committee on the deal in view
of the PM's statement en route Japan that India would "very soon"
approach the IAEA.
The draft safeguards agreement posted on the MEA website was dated
July 7. The official explanation for it was the Indian envoy to the
IAEA initialed the letter requisitioning a meeting of the Board a day
before he formally handed it over to the agency.
Consequently, the draft safeguards pact that fell in the `classified'
category until then was distributed to the 35 Board members, and
could be made public. "We took prompt action to place it on our
website," sources said. "It is wrong to interpret the request for the
meeting as going to the IAEA," added Congress spokesman Veerappa
Moily. Going to the Board meant consideration of the draft agreement
by the Governors at their next meeting — scheduled on July 28.
"Before that stage comes, we stand by our commitment of taking a
confidence vote in the Lok Sabha," declared Science and Technology
Minister Kapil Sibal at a separate briefing. He said the UPA-Left
mechanism to discuss the deal broke down with the communists'
decision to withdraw support. The government subsequently requested
the IAEA for the meeting, in preparation of which the draft was
circulated among the governors.
On the Opposition's charge that the government invoked the IAEA on
being reduced to a minority, the Congress claimed the UPA continued
to enjoy a majority and would prove it on the floor of the Lok
Sabha. "We do not believe in listing the numbers but in demonstrating
them in the House," said Moily.
"The US welcomes the government of India's initiative to move forward
with the US-India civil nuclear deal by seeking the IAEA approval for
its safeguards agreement," Mulford said in a statement here.
His statement came a day after the government made public the text of
its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA).
The US envoy said the deal would help India meet its growing energy
needs "in an economically efficient and environmentally friendly
manner and will strengthen the global non-proliferation regime.
"Much work still needs to be done to see this initiative through to
the final stages," the envoy underlined, while calling the deal a
significant component of the strategic partnership envisioned by
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush three
years ago.
"We will work closely with India, with governors in the IAEA, with
our Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) partners, and with the US Congress
to ensure that this initiative is implemented as quickly as
possible," he said.
The Indian government approached the IAEA secretariat in Vienna on
Wednesday night to circulate the text of the safeguards pact to the
agency's 35-member board for their approval.
Until a year ago, he was seen as a weak leader betrayed by his allies
and manipulated by enemies, in what many Indians saw as the decline
and steady fall of an erudite, honest prime minister.
Yet, when it came to the controversial nuclear deal with the United
States, Manmohan Singh, 75, put his foot down to support a pact that
may be one of his few lasting legacies.
That meant replacing the government's communist allies who opposed
the deal with crucial parliamentary support from the regional
Samajwadi Party.
Emboldened at the departure of his uneasy partners, who for the
better part of his four-year tenure opposed his free market reforms,
Singh now has an opportunity to get on with his economic agenda and
seal his legacy.
But with national elections only months away, time is running out on
him.
India's Parliament to Convene July 21-22 for Confidence Vote
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601091&sid=a14uCTt9VGEw&refer=india
India's parliament will convene July 21 and 22 to decide the fate of
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government, which this week lost the
support of Communist allies over a nuclear energy agreement with the
U.S.
``The cabinet has decided to summon a special session of the Lok
Sabha on July 21 and 22 to seek the vote of confidence,'' said
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi in New Delhi. ``This has
been communicated to the president.''
The government needs to prove it has majority support in parliament
to help conclude the nuclear accord, which Singh considers crucial to
secure India's energy needs. Singh has authorized the International
Atomic Energy Agency to circulate to its members plans under which
inspectors would get access to the country's atomic power facilities.
Four communist parties, Singh's erstwhile allies, withdrew their
backing of the government, saying the deal would undermine India's
sovereignty and independent foreign policy. The departure of the
communists was followed by the pledge of support for Singh by the
Samajwadi Party, a former rival based mostly in the northern state of
Uttar Pradesh.
The safeguards agreement with IAEA is a key condition to putting into
effect the nuclear cooperation accord with the U.S., giving India
access to civilian atomic technologies.
Remaining Agenda
A proof of majority may spur the government to complete an economic
plan that had been blocked by the communists. The coalition will work
toward fulfilling its agenda, said Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the
Congress party, which heads the ruling coalition.
``I have no doubt that we shall prove our majority and work earnestly
to fulfill our remaining agenda,'' Gandhi said today after meeting
with allies. The government won't proceed with the nuclear agreement
unless it has the support of parliament, she said.
Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party said he may back legislation easing
curbs on foreign companies expanding in insurance, pensions and
banking, ending a three-year deadlock.
The communists blocked Prime Minister Singh's plans to give foreign
companies including American International Group Inc. and Prudential
Plc a bigger role in the financial industry.
Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram says breaking the deadlock
on insurance, pension and banking is his unfinished agenda before the
government's term ends in May.
`Reduced to Minority'
Bills to open the pension business to overseas investors and remove a
10 percent cap on the voting rights of foreign investors in non-state
banks are stalled in parliament. Chidambaram unveiled plans to raise
the foreign investment ceiling for insurers to 49 percent from 26
percent in 2006.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) said the draft safeguards
agreement had been sent to the IAEA after the government had been
reduced to a minority because of the withdrawal of left support. The
party will seek to make it impossible for the government to go ahead
with the nuclear agreement, Prakash Karat, leader of the CPI(M), said
in a televised broadcast in New Delhi yesterday.
The main federal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, which heads the
National Democratic Alliance grouping, will seek to defeat the
government, said party leader Venkaiah Naidu. The confidence vote
would be on rising prices and terrorism and not just on the nuclear
deal, he said.
India plans to separate its civilian and military nuclear plants as
part of the safeguards agreement, the government said in the draft of
the accord issued in New Delhi yesterday.
Strategic Reserves
The country wants to develop strategic reserves of nuclear fuel,
according to the draft that the government has submitted to the
international nuclear regulator. Safeguarded items won't be put to
military use, India said.
Safeguards for the country's nuclear power generation plants will be
applied in phases. IAEA safeguards won't hamper the country's
economic development, the government said.
India needs to complete the safeguards agreement with the IAEA and
reach an accord with the Nuclear Suppliers Group before the U.S. can
take the treaty to Congress for approval.
Singh and President George W. Bush reaffirmed their commitment to the
nuclear treaty at a meeting of the Group of Eight industrial nations
summit in Toyako, Japan, earlier this week.
``Much work still needs to be done to see this initiative through to
the final stages,'' David Mulford, U.S. Ambassador to India, said in
an e-mailed release. ``We will work closely with India, with
governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with our Nuclear
Suppliers Group partners, and the United States Congress to ensure
that this initiative is implemented as quickly as possible.''
To contact the reporters on this story: Bibhudatta Pradhan in New
Delhi at bpradhan@bloomberg.net; Cherian Thomas in New Delhi at
cthomas1@bloomberg.net.
With the top Congress leadership closing ranks over the Indo-US
nuclear deal, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday night said
India is in the process of making history by going ahead with the
deal.
Another highlight of the two-hour long meeting of the Congress
Working Committee, the first after the Left withdrawal of support,
was an attack on the Left parties by some members and veiled
criticism of the Samajwadi Party by a member.
The apex policy making body of the party, which also heard External
Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, endorsed the deal and the
Government's decision to seek a trust vote.
Presided over by party chief Sonia Gandhi with the Prime Minister by
her side, the meeting saw several members, including Rahul Gandhi,
asserting that there was no need to be defensive on the deal.
Sources said Singh told the meeting that "we are in the process of
making history" as the deal was a unique achievement and that was why
many countries, including Pakistan, have not liked it.
Even western media was going to town impressing that India has got
away very easily "without paying the price".
Rahul Gandhi reportedly said that the deal was in the national
interest and if the Government falls on the issue then it is out of
bad luck.
The sources said that Karan Singh and Saifuddin Soz were critical of
the Left parties with the former accusing them of indulging in
blackmail.
Soz's target of attack was CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat. The
Union Minister was a member of the UPA-Left committee on the Indo-US
nuclear deal of which Karat was also a member.
They said at the outset, AICC General Secretary Janardan Dwiwedi
spoke of the damage to the party due to the alliances and coalitions
it made. His comment was in the backdrop of the SP giving support to
the coalition at the Centre when the Left has walked out.
His contention was that tying up at the Centre with political rivals
in the states harms the party because it fails to take them head on.
Another party General Secretary Mohsina Kidwai cautioned against
attempts by BSP's Mayawati as also Left to go in for a "communal"
campaign.
When a member said that constitutionally there was no need to take a
trust vote, Mukherjee said that politically it was necessary. "We do
not want to give any opportunity to our opponents".
UPA will win the trust vote on July 22: CWC
In the two-hour meeting, Congress Working Committee endorsed the
decision of the government to seek a trust vote.
"The CWC supported the decision taken by the government to seek a
trust vote. It also expressed confidence and determination to win the
vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha," Congress media department chief
and CWC member M Veerappa Moily told reporters after the meeting.
The United States said on Thursday it would seek to push a nuclear
trade deal with India past international and domestic hurdles with
time running out before a deadline set by U.S. elections in November.
India and the United States must win clearances from U.N. atomic
watchdog governors and a 45-nation group that controls sensitive
nuclear trade, then ratification by the U.S. Congress for the three-
year-old nuclear deal to take force.
After prolonged delay caused by a governing coalition split over the
deal, India took the first step toward implementing it on Wednesday
by submitting a draft plan for inspections of its civilian nuclear
reactors to the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-
nation Board of Governors in Vienna.
The deal has drawn controversy since India is outside the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), tested nuclear bombs in 1974 and 1998 and
says the accord will not curb its military nuclear program --
including the right to more tests if needed.
"We welcome India's willingness to move forward with this historic
initiative, which is part of the strategic partnership envisioned by
President (George W.) Bush and Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh," said
Gregory Schulte, U.S. envoy to the IAEA.
"The initiative will help strengthen the global (nuclear) non-
proliferation regime and help India meet its growing energy demands
in an environmentally friendly way," he told reporters.
"There is much that needs to be done. The next step is IAEA board
review ... We will work with India, our Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)
partners and the U.S. Congress to ensure the initiative is
implemented as expeditiously as possible."
World economy between recession and inflation - IMFBy Sabina Zawadzki
YALTA, Ukraine (Reuters) - The world's economy is teetering
between "the ice of recession and the fire of inflation", but may see
some recovery by early next year, IMF Managing Director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn said on Friday.
Addressing a conference in the Ukrainian Black Sea resort of Yalta,
Strauss-Kahn characterised the economic situation as the "first
crisis of the 21st century" made up of soaring inflation and a
financial market crisis. But the crisis was receding.
"No one can say that the world economy is at a good temperature," he
said.
"We are just between the ice of recession and the fire of inflation,"
he said, adding that soaring energy and food costs had topped the
agenda of a meeting of leaders of G8 industrialised countries in
Japan.
Strauss-Kahn said U.S. growth in the first quarter was better than
expected at 0.9 percent, but anticipated a global economic recovery
only in the first or second quarter of 2009.
The world economic order, he said, was rendered more unpredictable by
the fact that the financial crisis originated in the United States
amid doubts over low standard mortgages.
"It was the strongest economy and it was on the top of the pyramid of
power," he said. "What happened now is that the pyramid is a bit
upside down. It is no longer a pyramid of risk."
Although the worst of the financial market crisis was over, more
challenges lay ahead.
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-34478820080711
All these years the Communist Party leaders have said that they were
trying to keep U.S. influence at bay and protect India's poor from
ruthless foreign enterprises by blocking a deal on nuclear energy
with the United States.Critics of the Communists put it a little
differently, arguing that they are engaging in political
obstructionism in hopes of developing closer ties with China - at the
expense of the same rural underclass they claim to represent. The
Communists, with enough seats in Parliament to force an election at
any time, have staunchly rejected the deal - which would allow India
to buy U.S. nuclear energy technology without giving up...
Indian communists that provided the government with a parliamentary
majority for four years have withdrawn their support over a
controversial civilian nuclear deal with the United States.
The government will announce the date for a confidence vote on Friday
as it fights for survival after its communist allies withdrew their
support to protest against a U.S. nuclear deal.
Meanwhile, BJP on Friday stepped up its opposition to the Indo-US
nuclear deal alleging "sweeping" military and defence implications of
the draft India specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The main
opposition also sought to poke holes in government claims that India
has been given a favoured status by the US and said it was a routine
agreement with any non-nuclear state.
Addressing reporters in New Delhi, party spokesperson Ravi Shankar
Prasad claimed the draft also undermined the nuclear weapon state
status of the country.
"It is not an India specific agreement. It is a routine agreement and
India has not been treated as a Nuclear Weapon state," he said.
The agreement, if materialised will have sweeping implications on
India's military and defence programme, he added.
The United States on Friday welcomed India's decision to move
forward with the civilian nuclear deal by seeking International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approval for its safeguards agreement and
assured that Washington would work closely with the IAEA, the NSG and
the (US) Congress to see the initiatives are quickly implemented.
State department Spokesman Sean McCormack said the US was looking
forward to taking up the issues related to the nuclear deal with the
UN atomic watchdog and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
He did refer to time constraints, though, but added that the US was
fully committed to doing everything it can to conclude this
agreement. McCormack referred to both the IAEA and the NSG as not
directly under US control, as India has barely begun the IAEA
process. He underscored that time is needed for the waiver from the
NSG.
Earlier, Congressman Gary Ackerman had called upon India to complete
the IAEA and NSG process by August if the nuclear deal was to have
any hope of winning Congressional approval this year.
US Ambassador to India David C Mulford promised US cooperation on the
deal but said "much work is still needed."
BJP claimed that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assurance to the
Parliament on March 7 last year has not been honoured as per the
draft.
"There is nothing like what the Prime Minister had assured. His
assurances have not been honoured by his own government. There is no
clause to ensure perpetual supply of fuel," Prasad said.
The Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) can block the supply anytime and no
remedial measure is being defined in the draft, he added.
The saffron party also claimed that the draft "lacks clarity on how
India can come out of the deal."
The party would be coming out with a structured response on the draft
later, Prasad said.
Indian industrial output grew at its slowest rate in six years in
May, but a jump in inflation to nearly 12 percent made it unlikely
weakening growth would persuade the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to
hold off with interest rate rises.
The central bank's tightening campaign to tame price pressures stoked
by soaring oil costs bit into consumption and capital goods
production in the $1 trillion economy, casting doubt over official
forecasts for 8.0-8.5 percent economic growth this fiscal year.
But economists saw no respite on rates even after two increases in
June, given that inflation has more than tripled over the past six
months, raising the spectre of a backlash against the government at
elections due by May 2009.
The vote is expected to take place on either July 21 or July 22, a
spokesman at the prime minister's office said, but a final decision
will come after a cabinet meeting later on Friday.
A regional party has stepped in to replace the communists who opposed
the deal as harmful to India, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
government still needs the support of smaller parties and independent
lawmakers to survive the confidence vote.
The government will fall if it loses the vote, triggering early
elections and damaging chances of the deal.
The deal would be a landmark for India's relations with the West. It
allows India access to U.S. civilian nuclear fuel and technology
although it has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and
conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998.
Critics say the deal reverses 30 years of U.S. policy opposing
nuclear cooperation with India after it developed nuclear weapons.
Trying to cobble a parliamentary majority, government allies met on
Friday with potential supporting parties, many of who are keen to
avoid polls at a time when inflation is at a record high.
"I have no doubt that we shall prove our majority," Sonia Gandhi, the
ruling Congress party head and India's most powerful politician, was
quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India.
The government will seek a confidence motion to prove its
parliamentary majority. They need to reach the 272-member mark in the
543 member lower house of parliament to have a majority.
The parliamentary vote will probably be held in the next two weeks.
Here is a look at political parties and their numbers, according to
the latest figures available at the Indian parliament's website
(http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/) and to party officials.
The coalition building has only just started ahead of the no-
confidence vote. These numbers could possibly change as negotiations
between parties continue.
PRO-GOVERNMENT - 268 seats
* United Progressive Alliance - 226 members. The UPA is made up of
Congress party with 153 members, the northern Indian regional party
Rashtriya Janata Dal with 24 members, and the southern Indian party
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam with 16 members. The alliance also includes
another nine smaller parties.
The UPA also has the support of the northern Indian party Rashtriya
Lok Dal, which has three members. It is outside the government
alliance but supports the government.
* Samajwadi Party - 39 members. This regional party from northern
India holds the balance of power. They will replace the Communists,
supporting the government.
Some local media say a rebellion is brewing in the party over
supporting the nuclear deal and at least six lawmakers could switch
sides.
SMALL AND INDEPENDENT PARTIES - 28 seats.
* There are 28 independents and smaller parties, including the
southern Kerala Congress with two, the Mizo National Front with one
and others whose stand and votes could prove crucial.
THE OPPOSITION - 247 seats
* Communist parties - 59 members. The four parties may vote against
the government in parliament during a vote of no-confidence or could
abstain from voting to keep a minority government standing as they
don't want an early election.
* The National Democratic Alliance - 171 members - This opposition
alliance is led by India's main opposition group, the Hindu
nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has 130 lawmakers.
* The regional caste-based Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has 17 members
and recently withdrew support to the ruling government.
(Compiled by Bappa Majumdar and Surojit Gupta; Editing by Alistair
Scrutton) (For the latest Reuters news on India see: in.reuters.com,
for blogs see blogs.reuters.com/in/)
CIA has India surpassing Europe in 15 yearsNews
A new CIA report titled `Mapping the Global Future' projects that
India will overtake major European countries by GDP within 15 years:
By 2020, China's gross domestic product, the total value of goods and
services, will be greater than that of any Western country except the
United States, and India's GDP will have overtaken or will be about
to overtake European economies.
The National Intelligence Council, a division of the CIA, makes some
very interesting comparisons:
… the NIC said China and India, probably along with Brazil and
Indonesia, should emerge as "new major global players," comparing
their expected impact to that of a united Germany in the 19th century
and the United States in the early 20th century. "In the same way
that commentators refer to the 1900s as the `American Century,' the
21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and
India, comes into its own…"
The NIC is confident in its projections:
"Barring an abrupt reversal of the process of globalization or any
major upheavals in these countries, the rise of these new powers
(China and India) is a virtual certainty," it predicted.
There will be a geopolitical realignment…
As India's economy grows, governments in Southeast Asia — Malaysia,
Singapore, Thailand, and other countries — may move closer to India
to help build a potential geopolitical counterweight to China, it
said… Dubbing China, India, and perhaps others such as Brazil and
Indonesia, as `arriviste' powers, the report said they "have the
potential to render obsolete the old categories of East and West,
North and South, aligned and nonaligned, developed and developing."
… an expansion of military power…
"A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military
capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the
expected rapid rise in economic and military power for both
countries."
… and a cultural realignment as well:
Changes will be experienced… even culturally, as Korean pop singers
gain international popularity and India's Bollywood movie industry
outshines Hollywood.
The full report says it's possible India could overtake China as
well, but unlikely:
… China's ability to sustain its current pace is probably more at
risk than is India's; should China's growth slow by several
percentage points, India could emerge as the world's fastest-growing
economy as we head towards 2020.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000940.html
PM to Prez: Will seek confidence vote at earliest
Saroj Nagi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, July 10, 2008
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will seek a vote of confidence "as
early as possible" in response to the Left's withdrawal of support to
the UPA on the India-US civil nuclear agreement.
According to a Rashtrapati Bhavan communiqué issued after the PM
called on President Pratibha Patil on Thursday evening, the PM told
Patil that "he and his cabinet colleagues (were) keen to seek a vote
of confidence as early as possible." The PM spent 30 minutes with the
President. The communique was based on a letter he handed to her.
The Congress is breathing a little easy with the 39-member SP on
board. It is assiduously cultivating smaller parties and individual
MPs to either support the confidence motion or to abstain or absent
themselves.The PM will communicate the exact date of the trust vote
to the President on Friday. There was speculation on Thursday that
the government may choose a date around July 22 to call a special Lok
Sabha session for the vote. Though the date will be finalised only
after meetings of the UPA and the Congress Working Committee (CWC),
coalition MPs have been asked to be in Delhi by July 22. This will be
the first time since the beginning of the coalition era in 1989 that
a PM will seek a trust vote after four years in office — six PMs
before Singh faced trust votes inside their first couple of years.
The UPA coordination committee meets on Friday morning; the CWC in
the evening. Both meetings, to be presided by Sonia Gandhi in her
capacity as UPA chairperson and Congress president respectively, will
seek to project a picture of unity in the party and the UPA against
the backdrop of the Left's withdrawal of support to the government.
The PM, who returned from Japan shortly after midnight Wednesday, met
with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, and the Congress
Core Group.
The UPA and the CWC will also consider the report sent to Sonia by
Mukherjee on the UPA-Left consultations on the deal that came to an
abrupt end with the Left's July 8 decision to call it quits.
The Congress is breathing a little easy with the 39-member SP on
board. It is assiduously cultivating smaller parties and individual
MPs to either support the confidence motion or to abstain or absent
themselves.
Two SP MPs who are estranged from their party leadership, Raj Babbar
and Beni Prasad Verma, have already met Sonia Gandhi and committed
their support.
Union Minister Kapil Sibal appealed to all parties including the BJP,
JD(U) and Akali Dal to support the deal.
On his part, following an NDA meeting, Leader of the Opposition LK
Advani expressed hope that a majority would vote against the
government.
Advani, however, ruled out any floor coordination with the Left on
the issue.
Shocking betrayal of commitment, cries Left
Jatin Gandhi, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 11, 2008
The left on Thursday launched another scathing attack on the UPA
government, after the IAEA said that the draft safeguards agreement
was circulated among its board members on India's request, dubbing
the move as a "shocking betrayal" of the commitment made to the
country.
Left leaders said they did not doubt External Affairs minister Pranab
Mukherjee's integrity, but the government's move had made his
position "untenable". Mukherjee had announced that the government
would approach the IAEA only after it secures a trust vote. On
Wednesday night the IAEA announced that the agreement's text was sent
to the Board of Governors after India made a request.
"This is a blatant violation of the assurance given by the
government, a betrayal of the moral commitment to the country. What
transpired in the meeting of the PM with President Bush, which led to
this going back on a public pledge? The prime minister owes an answer
to the people and the country," Karat said.
"In less than 24 hours, when the country knows that the government is
reduced to a minority, the text (of the IAEA agreement) has been
submitted," he said.
The Left leaders, addressing the media just a day after parting ways
with the Congress-led government, used the opportunity to remind the
Congress that its move could be cause for another embarrassment for
Mukherjee — one of the party's senior leaders.
"There is no reason to doubt the integrity of Mukherjee who said that
he had consulted the prime minister before telling the nation that
the government would seek a confidence vote," Karat said.
CPI general secretary A.B. Bardhan said, "Twice he had said something
and twice the government did something else. He wrote a letter on
July 10 but before anything could be done, the prime minister went on
air saying that the government would move IAEA. Then again he made a
solemn commitment that the government would not proceed to the Board
of Governors of the IAEA till it proves its majority," he said.
The government and the Congress, till Wednesday, were maintaining
that the draft agreement is classified. "We got this text from
various American websites. This is the plight of the country," Karat
said. The text of the agreement was put out by the government on the
MEA and the PIB websites on Thursday.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?
sectionName=&id=bbbbac51-a0e3-47ed-9ff4-
a9b4d4a4c102Nucleardealimbroglio_Special&MatchID1=4725&TeamID1=2&TeamI
D2=3&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1191&PrimaryID=4725&Headline=Shocking+betr
ayal+of+commitment%2c+cries+Left
The question that comes to mind is that " Is Musharraf fighting
Terrorism or is he fighting India?". While India offered to join the
fight against terrorism because it is a victim of terrorism itself,
Pakistan has done so as a reaction that if it does not do so, then
India will certainly do so; and that will be the nemesis of
Pakistan.One remote possibility that we still cling on to is that the
Pakistani President has a Kemalist outlook at the bottom of his
heart. This may not be correct. But let us assume that it is. If it
is so then the present situation is a boon to fight out the Jihadi
forces which are inimical to reform. Kemal Ataturk of Turkey (from
whom President Musharraf is said to take inspiration) had to fight a
violent internal battle; before he could reform Turkey into a modern
progressive nation that it is today. Ataturk had to emasculate
Islam.The candidates for a fierce and desperately violent anti-
American war within Pakistan are the Al Badr, Sipah-e-Sahaba,
Laskhkar-e-Tayyaba, Laskhkar-e-Jhangvi, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-
Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammedi, and other private rogue armies, over
which the Pakistani leaders have been claiming since the days of the
Kargil crisis; that they has no control over.
The coming days could prove how much control they do have. And if
they really have no control over these private rogue armies operating
openly in Pakistan, the Americans would have their hands full with
fighting in Pakistan itself. President Musharraf would be well
advised to prepare counter measures right now to face this scenario
and pre-empt the Pakistani Jihadis.
Thursday, Mar 17, 2005
In publicly expressing her concerns about the Iran-India gas
pipeline during her press conference here on Wednesday, the visiting
United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, made it clear
that India's energy security and the Indo-U.S. "strategic
partnership" will matter less to Washington than its policy of
isolating and undermining the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Dr. Rice also dropped a broad hint that the Indian aspiration for a
greater role in international affairs would be better served not
through reform of the United Nations — and a permanent seat in the
Security Council — but through ad hoc U.S.-led multilateral
initiatives such as the controversial and short-lived "core group"
set up by Washington in the wake of last year's tsunami.
13 Jun, 2008
WASHINGTON: Changing tunes, the US on Friday said India's influence
is the "healthiest" part of global trade talks and New Delhi should
shoulder bigger responsibility for ensuring success of the Doha
Round.
"The healthiest and the most positive aspect of the Doha Round is the
presence and influence of countries like India and Brazil," US Trade
Representative Susan Schwab said at the US India Business Council
(USIBC) anniversary function here.
Schwab's remarks are in contrast to comments made by a senior
official in the Bush Administration who had earlier this week said
India has been a roadblock in the success of Doha negotiations.
India submits atom pact for IAEA approval
9 Jul, 2008, 2140 hrs IST, REUTERS
VIENNA: India's draft nuclear safeguards accord with the
International Atomic Energy Agency has been given to the IAEA's board
of governors for approval, the UN watchdog said on Wednesday.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the pact, a key condition for
putting a US-India nuclear cooperation treaty into effect, had been
circulated to the agency's 35-nation board after India's government
gave the green light for the move.
India, US on way to formal pact on investments
9 Jul, 2008, 0244 hrs IST,Deepshikha Sikarwar, ET Bureau
NEW DELHI: India and the US have decided to launch formal
negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement.
Both sides have held two rounds of exploratory talks and are keen to
start work on a formal framework. India has bilateral investment
promotion agreements (Bipa) with most of its key trading partners,
including Australia, the UK, France, Germany and Russia. US is the
only key partner with which it does not have an agreement.
New Delhi has a standard model for a Bipa which is slightly
conservative. The US bilateral investment treaty, on the other hand,
is very ambitious under which US investors get national treatment or
most-favoured-nation treatment when they initiate investment, and
throughout the life of the investment.
Government sources said New Delhi would be willing to upgrade the
investment agreement and incorporate certain provisions the US
agreements seeks to put in a treaty.
US, on its part, is ready to pare its ambition to certain extent and
would indicate the dates for formal talks on the treaty. New Delhi,
however, may not agree to inclusion of labour or environment
standards in the agreement that it has been vehemently opposing at
the global trade negotiations.
Moreover, it would be difficult for India to go in for pre-
establishment phase of investment under which a foreign investor can
avail protection even as he is in the process of establishing
business and seek compensation. US had tried to push such a clause in
its treaty with Pakistan.
A quick agreement is ruled out in the wake of such differences and
also because of the US elections. Sources, however, said the issues
would be thrashed during negotiations.
In the second round of exploratory talks that were held in June, both
sides had discussions on the existing foreign direct investment
regime in both the countries.
NPT Anniversary
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008
It is fitting that progress on disarmament talks with North Korea has
been made this week as this also marks another important milestone,
the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty forty years ago
this week. The treaty created a framework for countries to pledge not
to seek nuclear weapons and for existing nuclear powers to pledge to
work toward disarmament. Most countries in the world have signed the
treaty (including the U.S.), three have not (Israel, Pakistan, and
India) and one dropped out (North Korea). Progress is now being made
with North Korea, the U.S. is negotiating a deal with India (actually
the deal is done but domestic politics in India threatens to derail
the deal), Israel remains a "secret" nuclear power (their approach is
called strategic ambiguity or opacity, it's designed to keep their
neighbors guessing), and Pakistan, well there are major issues there
to address but they seem to have been tabled by the war, at least for
the time being. The treaty remains both relevant and timely, when you
hear Iran assert their right to develop peaceful nuclear power, that
right is enshrined in the NPT Treaty. For more information on this
important treaty, I refer you to the Nuclear Vault maintained by the
National Security Archive.
http://209.85.175.104/search?
q=cache:DbgjGFL0qZwJ:usrole.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2008/07/+US+Role+in
+India&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=91&gl=in
Politics of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Politics of India takes place in a framework of a federal
parliamentary multi-party representative democratic republic modelled
after the British Westminster System. The Prime Minister of India is
the head of government, while the President of India is the formal
head of state and holds substantial reserve powers, placing him or
her in approximately the same position as the British monarch.
Executive power is exercised by the government. Federal legislative
power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the
Parliament of India. The judiciary is independent of the executive
and the legislature.
According to its constitution, India is a "sovereign socialist
secular democratic republic." India is the largest state by
population with a democratically-elected government. Like the United
States, India has a federal form of government, however, the central
government in India has greater power in relation to its states, and
its central government is patterned after the British parliamentary
system. Regarding the former, "the Centre", the national government,
can and has dismissed state governments if no majority party or
coalition is able to form a government or under specific
Constitutional clauses, and can impose direct federal rule known as
President's rule. Locally, the Panchayati Raj system has several
administrative functions.
The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) sought assistance from
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) in january
2008, about the US space agency's role in India's manned mission to
space. Isro chairman G. Madhavan Nair had to sign an agreement with
Nasa administrator Michael Griffin on cooperation, exploration and
the use of outer space for peaceful purposes even as India steps up
its focus on the exploration of the solar system, beginning with an
unmanned mission to the moon in April.Analysts say India has been one
of the 14 countries discussing international collaboration in human
missions to the moon and beyond.Both space agencies had signed a
bilateral framework agreement for cooperation in earth and
atmospheric sciences in 1997, but this has been in cold storage after
India's nuclear tests in 1998. The agreement was revived in 2006.Isro
plans to send two or three astronauts in a capsule that will be
placed in orbit by a homegrown heavy GSLV rocket and expects to spend
Rs10,000 crore on the mission. Though it has set a deadline of 2014
for this project, Isro is yet to get the government nod for the
manned space flight programme.
In American Mind set up, a question hovers over the United States'
blooming friendship with India: How good a friend will India be
should it emerge as a great power?
Anand Giridharadas writes well in his article `What role for emerging
India as a U.S. ally?' inInternational herald tribune. Published:
February 7, 2007(http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/07/news/air.php)
Will it be a Britain — a loyal ally, a partner against terrorism, a
fellow evangelist for free markets and democracy? Or will it be
France — sharing Washington's bedrock values but ever willing to
pursue its own interests at the expense of American ones?
Or will it be China — a competitive threat to the U.S. economy, using
its influence to thwart American diplomatic pressure on nations like
Sudan and Iran?
This week, government officials and military-hardware makers from the
United States will be looking for clues to India's strategic
intentions as they attempt to break new ground. At an air show
outside the technology hub of Bangalore, they are seeking to sell
American-made warplanes to India, which has never before bought them.
Anand Giridharadas wrote:
Around the time that deal was struck, American officials often talked
up India as the new Britain, a natural ally whose growing clout was
an unmitigated good for the United States. But a year and a half
later, India has shown a tendency to chart an unpredictable
diplomatic course, whether by cozying up to the rulers of Myanmar,
Sudan and Iran or by stalling on its promises to open its economy
fully to American corporate giants like Wal-Mart, AIG and Citibank.
And so the hawking of aircraft in India is more than just a
commercial push: It is also a chance to decipher what kind of partner
India will be.
"To the extent the U.S. government is looking for clues, they come
from military sales contracts and from the process leading up to
them," said Teresita Schaffer, a former chief of the South Asia desk
at the U.S. State Department and now an India scholar at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "The U.S.
government does see military sales as an essential ingredient in a
serious security relationship."
The Pentagon has authorized the largest-ever deployment of display
aircraft to the subcontinent. India is expected to open a tender this
year for 126 new fighter jets to modernize its fleet, and the
Americans are hoping that their new friendship with Delhi will give
the F/A-18F Super Hornet, built by Boeing, and the F-16, built by
Lockheed Martin, an edge over the Russian MIG warplanes that have
long dominated the Indian Air Force fleet.
To counter Russia's historical advantage, Boeing has offered to
produce the F/A-18F jointly with an Indian company. Lockheed scored
public-relations points by recruiting Ratan Tata, a billionaire
Indian industrialist and amateur pilot, to fly in an F-16 at the air
show.
The Americans are also peddling Chinook choppers, C-130 Hercules
transport planes and the P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft, and the
American companies sending representatives to Bangalore this week
include Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric and Pratt & Whitney. They
will join hundreds of companies from 28 countries, according to the
Indo-Asian news service.
American defense companies regard India as a $30 billion opportunity
over five years, one leader of the American delegation, William
Cohen, a former U.S. defense secretary, told reporters in New Delhi
on Monday.
But it is an open question whether Indians see themselves as the kind
of loyal allies that American officials envision when they make such
projections.
On paper, India seems a natural U.S. ally. As Cohen wrote in The Wall
Street Journal this week, echoing a widely held view in Washington,
India and the United States are "multiethnic and secular democracies"
with "shared values, interests and objectives" and, he added, "ideal
partners in exerting a positive influence in the 21st century."
Signs of new cooperation abound: Trade and investment are flourishing.
Military exercises between the United States and India are becoming
more frequent. India is playing an important and little-noticed role
in post- Taliban reconstruction in Afghanistan. And New Delhi, more
than most other major capitals, is generally warm to the Bush
administration's campaign against terrorism, given its own battles
with Islamic extremists. But as India has accrued ever more influence
in recent years, it has not always spent it in ways helpful to
Washington.
The four day visit between the Indian External Affairs Minister and
his Chinese counterpart in June 2008 highlighted the cooperative
dimension of Sino-Indian relations, built on expanding trade and a
relatively peaceful border. But the competitive aspect of India-China
relations is alive and well, marked by different views of Asia,
Indian concerns about China's eventual security goals in the Indian
Ocean, and Chinese suspicions of India-U.S. relations. From the U.S.
point of view, both are essential players in shaping a peaceful Asia.
The world's two largest democracies were on frosty terms during the
Cold War, and India relied for most of its military firepower on
Soviet imports. But with times changing, particularly after the 9/11
attacks highlighted common security interests, the leaders of the two
nations declared in July 2005 that they were warming their ties into
a strategic partnership. At the heart of the new bond is a civilian
nuclear deal, recently enacted as law in Washington, that lifts
constraints on India's purchases of nuclear fuel for its civilian
reactors and frees American companies to sell sensitive technologies
to India.
A little more than four decades ago, the United States was India's
biggest and most influential foreign aid partner, proudly helping to
construct power plants, factories, university campuses and other
symbols of modernization in the world's most populous democracy.
But in 1988, as a result of aid cuts in several stages, the United
States was the ninth most generous donor to India in the non-
Communist world. Japan, which was the biggest donor, would give $1.2
billion in 1988 in direct loans or grants, more than twelve times the
amount from Washington.
The diminished American status in India had come in steps since the
late 1960's, and it was mitigated by Washington's role as the biggest
contributor to the World Bank and other global lending agencies that
supply billions of dollars in credit to India each year.
Yet, stung by criticism for its sharp cut in direct aid, Washington
had in effect had to search for a new role for itself as an economic
power in India. As a result, it had come to stress other strategies,
stirring new questions about what is the most effective way to
channel aid to the developing world.
In 1987, under pressure to reduce the Federal deficit, Congress
slashed direct economic development aid to India to $24 million, less
than a third of the level a few years before and a tiny fraction of
the level decades ago. Some members of Parliament reacted by calling
for a shutdown of the entire aid program, but then Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi rebuffed the idea.
Mr. Gandhi, an Indian Prime minister for the first time, just before
Nara simha rao who with Dr manmohan singh as finance minister
reversed the soviet model of development and the great alliance of
strategic equations with United states began,sought to improve ties
with the United States, not least because of Washington's influence
at the World Bank and other lending agencies.
The immediate result was that the United States also became India's
biggest source of private foreign investment - $500 million in
American money has been invested since the 1950's - and Washington
had been more forthcoming on licenses for high-technology items in
military and other fields.
Since independence in 1947, India became industrialized and it
achieved a large measure of self-sufficiency in food. The United
States contributed $12 billion in aid since 1947 to 1988, and the
Soviet Union $6 billion, according to American estimates. U.S. to End
Projects
CIRUS REACTOR'S ROLE
IN A U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
Paul Leventhal, Nuclear Control Institute
Presentation to
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Washington, DC
December 19, 2005
http://www.nci.org/06nci/04/CIRUS%20Reactors%20Role%20in%20a%20US-
India%20Nuclear.htm
It is fair to say that were it were not for the CIRUS reactor---and
the uncovering of the secret US role in supplying the heavy-water
moderator that India used in the reactor to produce the plutonium for
its 1974 test---there would not have been a Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Act.
There would not have been its statutory requirement for full-scope
safeguards as a condition of nuclear supply.
And there would not be today the international norm of comprehensive
safeguards embodied in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which is based on
the US law.
So CIRUS holds a very special place in nonproliferation history and
the development of US nonproliferation policy. This needs to be
understood if we are to do the right thing in working out a new
nuclear relationship with India.
My own personal involvement in this history and policy began with a
telephone call I received 31 years ago on a May morning in 1974 when
I was a young staffer on the U.S. Senate Government Operations
Committee. It was from a Congressional liaison officer of the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission who said he was calling to inform me that
India had just conducted a nuclear test and to assure me that "the
United States had absolutely nothing to do with it."
At that time, I was working on legislation to reorganize the AEC into
separate regulatory and promotional agencies. I had begun
investigating the weapons potential of nuclear materials being used
in the U.S. Atoms for Peace program, both at home and abroad. The
official wanted me to know there was no need to consider remedial
legislation on nuclear exports because the plutonium used in India's
test came not from the safeguarded nuclear power plant at Tarapur,
supplied by the United States, but from the unsafeguarded Cirus
research reactor near Bombay, supplied by Canada. "This is a Canadian
problem, not ours," he said.
It took me two years to discover that the information provided me
that day was false. The United States, in fact, had supplied the
essential heavy-water component that made the Cirus reactor operable,
but decided to cover up the American supplier role and let
Canada "take the fall" for the Indian test. Canada promptly cut off
nuclear exports to India, but the United States did not.
In 1976, when the Senate committee uncovered the U.S. heavy-water
export to India and confronted the State Department on it, the
government's response was another falsehood: the heavy water supplied
by the U.S., it said, had leaked from the reactor at a rate of 10% a
year, and had totally depleted over 10 years by the time India
produced the plutonium for its test.
But the committee learned from Canada that the actual heavy-water
loss rate at Cirus was less than 1% a year, and we learned from
junior-high-school arithmetic that even a 10%- a-year loss rate
doesn't equal 100% after 10 years. Actually, more than 90% of the
original U.S. heavy water was still in the Cirus reactor after 10
years, even if it took India a decade to produce the test plutonium---
itself a highly fanciful notion.
We also learned that the reprocessing plant where India had extracted
the plutonium from Cirus spent fuel, described as "indigenous" in
official U.S. and Indian documents, in fact had been supplied by an
elaborate and secret consortium of U.S. and European companies.
Faced with this blatant example of the Executive Branch taking
Congress for the fool, the Senate committee drafted and Congress
eventually enacted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978. And
the rest, as they say, is history.
I am by no means convinced that we today need a new nuclear
relationship with India, short of India formally committing to roll
back its nuclear weapons, South Africa style, at such time as there's
a settlement with Pakistan on Kashmir---and committing also to join
the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state at that time.
There seems to be little support for such an approach, and I'm sure
much angst over even giving voice to such an impolitic proposal.
So, for the moment at least, I will focus on the current push for a
nuclear cooperation agreement with India, and the way the CIRUS
reactor should be treated in it.
The prospective nuclear cooperation agreement will establish India as
a de facto nuclear weapons state, which is just as good as a de jure
nuclear weapons state if de facto status comes without penalties and
with full access to imported nuclear reactors, fuel and fuel-cycle
technology.
This would be a sweet deal for India, but a body blow to the non-
proliferation regime, so-called.
Country specialists in the US always seem willing to sacrifice non-
proliferation on the altar of normalized relations with the country
in question. This has been especially so for India.
Victor Gilinsky and I discussed this problem in an op-ed article we
co-authored in the Washington Post soon after the Indian tests of
1998. We noted that "[i]n the history of U.S.-India relations,
nothing stands out so much as India's constancy in pursuing nuclear
bomb-making and America's nearsightedness about Indian intentions.
India fought to weaken the charter of the new International Atomic
Energy Agency in the 1950s. It was duplicitous in carrying out Atoms
for Peace agreements in the 1960s. It undermined the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty with its "peaceful" bomb of 1974.
"Despite this history, each new generation of American policymakers
thinks that by being a little more accommodating it will gain Indian
restraint and acceptance of nuclear controls. The Indians (they are
not alone in this) have for a long time played on that
characteristically American self-deception that stems from a mix of
idealism and commercial greed. It is not surprising that the Indians
expect that game to continue."
And as we can see from today's fevered negotiations to normalize US-
India relations by putting old nuclear disputes to rest, the game
does continue. But nonproliferation must be given more than
hortatory treatment in any nuclear agreement with India.
In 1974, the U.S. bent over backwards not to confront India on Indian
use of U.S. heavy water to produce plutonium for its test. It
covered up the U.S. role in CIRUS, and Congress reacted angrily after
the role was uncovered. The end result was the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978. Today, the U.S. government appears to
be preparing for a repeat performance on CIRUS, only this time the
end result may be an agreement that allows India to turn an Atoms for
Peace reactor into a declared military production plant. I cannot
think of anything more damaging to U.S. nonproliferation credibility
and security interests. Such an outcome will surely embolden Iran
and North Korea to apply their civilian nuclear programs to weapons
purposes.
Angry Congressional reaction to discovering America's role in India's
1974 test was enactment of the 1978 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act.
Its basic reforms---requiring full-scope safeguards as a condition of
nuclear fuel and reactor exports, and requiring case-by-case approval
of reprocessing spent fuel---so out of step with galloping global
nuclear commerce at the time, have since been incorporated into the
international rules of the road through the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
These reforms were made possible because CIRUS helped exposed major
flaws in the non-proliferation regime.
Article III.2 of the NPT was interpreted to allow NPT parties to
export to non-parties without full-scope safeguards so long as the
individual transfer was subject to safeguards.
CIRUS predated the NPT and the treaty's safeguards requirements. But
the reactor was subject to "peaceful uses only" contracts with Canada
and the US and thus exposed the ability of a country to blatantly
misuse a civilian, Atoms for Peace reactor to produce plutonium for
weapons. It also exposed the fact that unrestricted reprocessing of
spent fuel could produce plutonium for weapons. The case was made
for applying controls on reprocessing after we learned that India's
so-called "indigenous" reprocessing plant, which separated plutonium
from CIRUS spent fuel, had actually been the work of a secret
consortium of U.S and European suppliers.
.
CIRUS also exposed the extent bureaucracy will go to cover its rear
end at time of supreme embarrassment.
Lessons learned from CIRUS:
1. Don't enter into a new agreement until violations of past
agreements have been corrected.
2. You don't tighten the NPT regime by punching holes in it.
What needs to be done:
1. CIRUS must be declared a civilian facility, as should all power
reactors in India---imported and indigenous.
2. All plutonium produced by CIRUS should be placed under safeguards,
or, if that's impractical because most CIRUS plutonium is imbedded in
warheads,
3. An equivalent amount of plutonium from India's indigenous Dhruva
research reactor should be substituted for the CIRUS plutonium and
placed under safeguards.
4. The fact that India refurbished CIRUS and presumably substituted
its own heavy water does not change the situation. Had India shut
CIRUS down and replaced it with an indigenous production reactor,
that would be a different situation, at least as far as future
plutonium production is concerned. But it refurbished CIRUS at a
fraction of the cost of building a new production reactor. So, the
principal of contamination vs. proportionality should apply. The
reactor was "contaminated" by the original peaceful use commitments
made to Canada and the U.S. Peaceful use is not proportional to the
extent of refurbishment or to the percentage of original heavy water
remaining in the reactor. (Superphenix precedent)
Conclusion:
If India is not prepared to make good on its original peaceful-use
commitments on CIRUS, the U.S. should not enter into an agreement for
nuclear cooperation with India. Continued military operation of
CIRUS should be a show-stopper, as far as the United States is
concerned.
The U.S. Role in India's Tests
By Richard N. Haass, Director, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings
Institution
The Washington Times -- May 14, 1998
http://www.indianembassy.org/pic/usmedia/haass.htm
India's nuclear weapons tests pose a major dilemma to the Clinton
administration. It is important that the United States react -- but
not overreact. India has
confronted us with a challenge, but not as yet a catastrophe. Our
goal must be to see that none comes about.
India's decision to detonate five nuclear devices for the first time
in nearly a quarter of a century removes much of the veneer shrouding
its nuclear weapons
program. Still, India remains a de facto nuclear weapons state --
only more explicitly than was the case a week ago.
The tests reportedly came as a surprise to U.S. officials. But this
action was consistent with India's longstanding refusal to sign the
Nuclear Non Proliferation
Treaty, its attempt to block the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and
the political platform of the newly elected Bharatiya Janata Party.
The motivation for going ahead with tests at this time likely
reflected a desire to develop warheads that could fit on India's
growing missile inventory. The tests also
appear to be a message to both China and Pakistan, both of which have
nuclear programs of their own. One should also not rule out the
possibility that the tests
were a political statement by a country that has always rejected and
resented being left outside the nuclear club.
The U.S. need to react negatively is obvious, lest we communicate the
message to other would-be nuclear weapon states that there is no cost
if they go down this
path. It would also be harder for us to build international support
against Iraq's or Iran's nuclear program if we were seen to look the
other way on this occasion.
But it is no less important to keep our powder dry. There are worse
outcomes than India or even Pakistan testing nuclear devices. These
include a decision by
China to resume nuclear testing (which would leave the Test Ban
Treaty stillborn) or, even more seriously, India and Pakistan racing
to field a significant number of missiles armed with nuclear
warheads.
As a result, we should direct the lion's share of our efforts to
preventing major instability in South Asia. The goal should be to
discourage additional testing by
anyone and to establish a new plateau -- one that does not involve
actual deployment of Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons. It is also
important that we act to
preserve the U.S.-India relationship. What is at stake here are ties
with a country with a billion people, a large and growing market and
a robust democracy.
Isolating India will not serve U.S. economic or strategic interests;
nor would it weaken a government that has taken a step applauded by
most Indians, who wonder why the world is prepared to live with
China's nuclear arsenal but not India's.
What, then, should the United States do? We should work to build
international support for narrow sanctions that target the immediate
problem -- namely India's
nuclear and missile programs -- but that do not go so far as to turn
a friend in to a foe. It is difficult to see how the same sanctions
that fail to deter India from testing will now cause it to back away
from a nuclear weapons option.
Just as important is what we do not do. The United States ought not
to cancel diplomatic contacts with India; recalling our Ambassador is
a natural but not necessarily wise reaction. More important, the
president's planned trip to India this fall should go forward.
Consultations are more important than ever when we disagree; indeed,
going to India gives Mr. Clinton an opportunity to make his case to
the Indian government and public.
The administration should also work to hold off the sort of wholesale
economic sanctions called for by existing legislation. Cutting off
all American and international economic support for India risks
turning this enormous country into the newest Asian problem.
President Clinton should take advantage of the 30-day waiting
period provided by U.S. law to strike a deal with Congress on a
limited set of penalties.
A good many people in Congress and beyond will reject this proposed
approach as too mild, fearing that the limited sanctions will not
dissuade India or others from further proliferation. This view is
understandable but flawed. The reality is that not all proliferation
is equally bad. We have long held that nuclear weapons in
responsible hands such as our own can be stabilizing, a deterrent to
the use of conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by
others.
Indeed, discrimination is at the heart of the entire non-
proliferation regime in that it treats five countries (the United
States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France) different from
everyone else. We also long viewed India, as well as Pakistan and
Israel, as in a different category than Iran, Iraq, Libya and North
Korea. Double standards-- and triple standards if need be - are what
a realistic and successful foreign policy is all about.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Times
Indian Politics Stymie U.S.-Indian Nuclear Deal
Wade Boese
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_04/IndianPolitics.asp
With U.S. officials warning that time is running out on an initiative
to rollback restrictions on global nuclear trade with India, that
country's coalition government failed March 17 to persuade its
leftist allies to drop their opposition to the U.S.-Indian effort.
Another meeting to sway the holdouts is supposed to take place
sometime in April.
The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is trying to win over
the leftist parties because they have threatened to withdraw support
for the ruling coalition if it takes certain steps toward
implementing what the leftists charge is a deal that will erode
India's sovereignty and security. Such a split could trigger early
elections that risk unseating Singh's government.
The key issue at the March conclave was whether Singh's government
should finalize a safeguards agreement it negotiated over the past
several months with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Safeguards are measures that the agency applies to a country's
declared civilian nuclear materials, technologies, and facilities to
guard against their use for nuclear weapons purposes.
As part of a March 2006 agreement with President George W. Bush,
Singh pledged to put eight additional Indian thermal nuclear reactors
under IAEA safeguards, leaving another eight outside of safeguards
and free to contribute to India's nuclear weapons sector. New Delhi
also plans to keep its two fast breeder reactors, which can produce
large quantities of the nuclear bomb material plutonium, outside of
safeguards. It further retains the option to designate any future
reactors of any type that it builds off-limits to the IAEA.
Singh's government is seeking the leftist parties' endorsement of the
new safeguards arrangement so it can be completed and presented for
approval by the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors. The leftist
parties have warned that they will break with the government if it
proceeds with the safeguards agreement without their consent.
The text of the India-specific safeguards agreement remains secret
and unfinished. A source familiar with the IAEA-Indian talks told
Arms Control Today March 19 that "the sides are close to a final
text, but India has to confirm the text" before it can be presented
to the board, which typically has agreed to safeguards arrangements
by consensus. It can, however, approve them with a simple majority
vote.
At the March meeting, Singh's government did not share the safeguards
text with the representatives of the leftist parties, opting to brief
them instead. The Hindu, one of India's largest daily newspapers,
reported afterward that leftist leaders said they need more details
and that deliberations might take another three to four months.
That prospect conflicts with recent statements by U.S. government
officials and legislators that the IAEA Board of Governors and the
voluntary Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) must act rapidly on the U.S.-
Indian initiative so U.S. lawmakers can take it up before this summer
when Congress will recess and then turn its attention to the November
elections. (See ACT, March 2008.) The 45 members of the NSG,
including the United States, seek to coordinate their nuclear export
rules, one of which restricts trade with countries, such as India,
that do not subject their entire nuclear enterprise to IAEA
safeguards and remain outside the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. India largely has been ostracized from the international
nuclear market since conducting a 1974 nuclear blast that used
material derived from Canadian and U.S. exports designated for
peaceful purposes.
U.S. lawmakers in December 2006 approved legislation with a provision
that the NSG must clear India for expanded nuclear trade before
Congress will vote on a U.S.-Indian nuclear trade agreement
negotiated last summer. (See ACT, September 2007.) Meanwhile, the NSG
is waiting on IAEA board approval of the Indian safeguards agreement.
The next NSG meeting is scheduled to occur May 19-22, which is prior
to the next regular IAEA board meeting June 2-6. A special meeting of
the board, however, can be convened at the request of the IAEA
director-general or any board member, including the United States or
India. The source familiar with the IAEA-Indian talks said that there
are "no plans for a special session of the board" but noted that
could change quickly if the Indian government gives final approval to
the negotiated safeguards text.
Still, the window might already be closed. Nicholas Burns,
undersecretary of state for political affairs, told the Hindustan
Times Feb. 29 that the "Indian government needs to move in the month
of March on the IAEA Board of Governors" in order to give the NSG and
Congress time to act. Noting that "it's not going to happen
overnight," he warned that the NSG process will be "complicated"
and "require many meetings." Burns further cautioned that if Congress
did not get around to passing the agreement this year, he
thought "it's very likely that we will not see it continued by a new
administration."
The Nuclear Deal And Democracy
By Suvrat Raju
10 July, 2008
Countercurrents.org
While much has been written about the Indo-US nuclear deal, a central
question remains unasked: "Why is the deal important enough to
precipitate a crisis in the government?".
The answer that the proponents of the deal provide –- that the deal
is essential for energy security –- is, evidently, simple minded.
According to figures provided by Anil Kakodkar –- the chairperson of
the Department of Atomic Energy –- the deal will increase India's
installed energy capacity by 2.5% by 2020 (1). While the Prime
Minister may be perspicacious, this stretches the bounds of sagacity;
simply put, governments do not risk self sacrifice for small gains in
energy production, 12 years in the future. When one compounds this
insignificant gain with the considerable uncertainty that the deal
will actually clear the American congress before September, the
energy security argument becomes completely untenable.
Indeed, the very desperation of the government to pass this deal
indicates, more clearly than anything else, that the deal is not just
about energy. While it is clear that the deal is about a larger
strategic relationship with the US, this begs the question; most
aspects of this relationship, including closer military and economic
ties seem to be independent of the deal. So, what is the fuss about?
This question is answered candidly in the American strategic
discourse. An alliance with the US entails an essential prerequisite:
the government should be in a position to fulfill American demands,
irrespective of domestic political considerations. Although, this is
deeply undemocratic, this makes sense. Imagine the horror of American
legislators if they were to help India obtain a seat in the security
council only to find the Indian government arguing against American
interference in Venezuela!
Incidentally, this doctrine applies to any bilateral relationship
involving the US. During the Iraq war, Rumsfeld dismissed France and
Germany as belonging to `old' Europe. As Chomsky pointed out (2), the
countries of `new' Europe –- like Italy or Spain –- were those that
supported Washington in spite of strong domestic opposition.
Viewed from this perspective, India has behaved well in recent years.
Ashley Tellis, an influential advisor to the US government, arguing
for the deal in a testimony to the US House of representatives
approvingly noted at least 10 instances –- including India's vote
against Iran, its support for the war in Afghanistan and its
endorsement of American positions on climate change, missile defense
and chemical weapons -- where the Indian government acted against
domestic opposition and long held policies to support the US.(3)
On the other hand, the existence of an independent democratic
discourse in India is a matter of great concern for the US. Ashton
Carter, a member of the Clinton administration, lamented to the US
senate that the fact that India was a democracy meant that "no
government in Delhi can ... commit it to a broad set of actions in
support of U.S. Interests" before pointing out that India's "...
stubborn adherence to independent positions regarding the world
order, economic development, and nuclear security" created a serious
hazard for Indo-US strategic ties.(4)
These testimonies merely articulate what is public knowledge.
Washington expects compliance from its allies. If India is to be a
trusted ally it cannot protest loudly against the oppression of
Palestinians, organize developing countries in defense of Iran or
repudiate iniquitous conditions laid down by the WTO; it must support
the US in diplomatic forums and provide logistical support for US
military operations in Asia. Furthermore, and this is critical for
American policy makers, this support cannot be contingent on the
vagaries of Indian politics. Hence, while the Indian elite is quite
willing to accede to these demands, it must first convince the US
that its house is in order. It must tame the complexities of Indian
democracy so that it can deliver on what it promises. The importance
of this cannot be overstated.
In this context, the nuclear deal provides a high profile test case.
The passage of the deal, although materially insignificant, is an
extremely important matter of principle. If domestic political
considerations cause the government to balk, that sets a terrible
example and leaves India –- in the words of Ronen Sen –- with "zero
credibility".(5) The consequent loss of trust that this will engender
in Washington will damage ties with the US for years to come.
In any case, Indian ruling classes have been impatient with
democratic dissent since it creates difficulties in their attempts to
ram through an elite agenda. As Chidambaram put it (6), "Indian ...
democracy has often paralyzed decision making ... this approach must
change." After the deal was stalled last year, Manmohan Singh
wondered whether a "single party state" would be preferable!(7)
India's newly empowered elite now finds that this frustrating
political process threatens its global aspirations. This has brought
together powerful interests ranging from India Inc. to NRI lobby in
an attempt to remove roadblocks to the deal. These forces are strong
enough to impel the government to risk its own survival.
The message, conveyed to the G8, was that India is ruled by a
government that is willing to make (in the words of Nicholas Burns,
the American negotiator for the nuclear deal), "courageous decisions"
(8) -- and bulldoze domestic dissent -- if this is demanded by
Washington or Brussels!
This is bad news for Indian democracy. The Indian system, despite its
tremendous iniquities and imperfections is based on the notion that
governments privilege their survival over all else. The idea that a
government may imperil its own existence to fulfill commitments made
to a foreign government is antithetical to the idea of democracy. The
recent baffling actions of the Manmohan Singh government must be
understood as a worrying loss of democratic space.
----------------
References
----------------
(1)The Hindu, 31 October, 2007 and "Energy for India in the coming
decades", Anil Kakodkar,
http://www.dae.gov.in/iaea/ak-paris0305.doc
(2)Znet, 31 October, 2003
(3)Testimony by Ashley J. Tellis before the House Committee on
International Relations, November 16, 2005
(4)Ashton Carter, Testimony Testimony before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate, November 2, 2005.
(5)Rediff, Aug 20, 2007:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/20inter.htm
(6)Convocation Address, IIM Ahmedabad, March 31, 2007
http://financeminister.gov.in/public_speeches/pdf/2007.
3.31%20Convocation%20Address,%20IIM,%20Ahmedabad.pdf
(7)Inaugural Address to the 4th International Conference on
Federalism, November 5, 2007
(8)The Hindu, March 1, 2008
Suvrat Raju is a physicist and an activist. He just completed his PhD
at Harvard.
Edit this page (you have permission) Edit this page (if you have
permission) | Report spam Google Docs -- Web word processing,
presentations and spreadsheets.
