Who dares to defy US Dictation

Who dares to defy US Dictation



Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 22


Palash Biswas



http://troubledgalaxydetroyeddreams.blogspot.com/







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&TeamID2=3&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1191&PrimaryID=4725&Headline=Shocking+betrayal+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.