"Delhi scorns to sign CTBT, NPT," The Daily Mail, January 17, 2009.

New Delhi—India has asserted that it will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) notwithstanding its bilateral atomic agreement with the US, which is expected to pursue these pacts during the Obama government.

Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan expected similar treatment as far as the US-India nuclear deal were concerned.

“We will not sign CTBT or NPT and we have made it absolutely clear to the US that we are bound by the bilateral agreement with it and India-specific safeguards with the IAEA,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in an interview.

His comments came while responding to remarks by incoming US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that CTBT would be a priority for the new US government.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Malou Innocent and Christopher Preble, "Questionable deals in a volatile region," Cato Institute, October 27, 2008.

India will not play the role assigned to it, meekly bowing to US pressure and balancing a rapidly rising China.

Pakistan secured China's help to build two new nuclear power reactors in mid-October, though China declined to commit to helping bolster Pakistan's dwindling foreign exchange reserves. It seems no coincidence that this nuclear deal comes just a few weeks after the ratification of the long-stalled US-India nuclear agreement.

One of the more dangerous contingencies that the US-India nuclear deal was supposed to avert was an upwardly spiralling arms race between India and Pakistan. Does the China-Pakistan nuclear deal imply the emergence of two contending great power blocs in Asia - the US and India on one hand, China and Pakistan on the other? Western policymakers should not hyperventilate - at least not yet. Pakistan and China have always enjoyed warm relations. It is also true that Pakistan and China have typically drawn closer whenever the US and India do the same. It is no accident, therefore, that the Pakistan-China summit occurred shortly after the US and India extended their strategic partnership into the nuclear arena.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"US house approves nuclear deal," IndiaPost.com, September 29, 2008.

WASHINGTON: The Indo-US nuclear deal has moved into the last lap clearing a major hurdle when the House of Representatives approved legislation on it. It has now gone to the Senate. Once the Senate clears the bill, the agreement reached between the two countries three years ago will be ready to be inked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee. Rice's visit to New Delhi on October 3 may be rescheduled, a high-ranking Indian official accompanying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said.

The External Affairs Minister who is in New York is scheduled to return to the Indian capital on October 3. The Prime Minister voiced happiness that the nuclear deal has crossed another hurdle following its approval by the House. "I am happy that one hurdle has been crossed but I think that is not the end of the legislative process. So, we will wait for the final outcome," he told reporters on way to France at the end of his five-day visit to the US.

Diverse reactions NEW DELHI: The passage of Indo-US nuclear deal by the US House of Representatives evoked diverse reactions from the political class with Left parties saying there is nothing to celebrate while Congress described it as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's "highest feat" of diplomacy.

The BJP declined to pass a judgment saying the bill is still to be cleared by the US Senate. Senior CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury said there was "nothing surprising" in this development and that both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Americans wanted to seal India's surrender" to the "American dictats," he said adding that the Prime Minister was "in his own timewrap". "There is nothing to celebrate.

The apprehensions expressed by Left parties have come true," CPI National Secretary D Raja said. Raja came down heavily on the approval by the House of Representatives alleging "corporate house and military-industrial complex of the United States played a key role in lobbying to get the deal passed".

India is "bailing out" the United States from its "grave economic crisis", he added. Raja said the Left will collectively take a decision about the course of action on the issue as the deal "undermines New Delhi's nuclear self-reliant programs and make the country dependent on American nuclear business". Forward Bloc Secretary D Deverajan alleged New Delhi will be forced to formulate future foreign policy matters in congruence with American policies.Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Losing "the right war."

Barnett Rubin's updated entry on the bombing of India's Embassy in Kabul, is enough of a gloss on Juan Cole's suggestion that the Haqqani group was responsible to conclude that this is at best speculation. Shahzad's view that Haqqani was a bad target reveals that the dialectic between "Too little, too late" and "The Wrong Stuff" continues.

The slaughtering of civilians on both sides of the border (New Evidence on Azizabad Sep 9 08) is bound to have consequences. Gareth Porter suggests that Pashtuns in the regular Pakistani Army may defect to the Taliban, but that may be an optimistic view of the risks. The flow of members out of the normally effective Pashtun branch of the Frontier Corps has been going on since the Red Mosque massacre. The US-India nuclear deal, which just passed its penultimate obstacle, is an additional aggravation to US-Pakistan relations, not made easier by newly-increased tensions in Kashmir.

Porter also suggested in an interview with Amy Goodman this morning that the raids are speculative and hope to gather (rather than being based on) solid intelligence. No indication yet whether the Americans have learned anything from the raids, but the list of much larger actions from which they have evidently learned nothing is growing daily.

Combine the Bush decision to interpret NIC warnings by ordering actions they believed would have the effect of destabilizing Pakistan with Cheney's "let's you and him fight" message in Ukraine, and it seems possible that the lame duck has decided to stir the pot. I was hoping--against all evidence--for more grown-up behavior.

Since the Embassy bombing in Kabul, the Sarposa prison release, the expansion of the insurgency to the north, and now the closing of the Pakistan border, it should be clear that NATO is losing the war in its "most distant abroad" while the most progressive of the top two American presidential candidates declare it to be the right war. Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"NPT RIP and reflections on consensus," September 6, 2008.

"...for the first time in my experience of international diplomatic negotiations, a consensus decision was followed by complete silence in the room. No clapping, nothing. It showed a lot of us felt pressured...

VIENNA, Sept 6 (Reuters) - Forty-five nations approved a U.S. proposal on Saturday to lift a global ban on nuclear trade with India in a breakthrough towards sealing a U.S.-Indian atomic energy deal.

One hurdle remained before the U.S.-India deal can take force -- ratification by the U.S. Congress. It must act before adjourning in late September for elections or the deal could be left to an uncertain fate under a new U.S. administration.

The U.S.-India deal raised international misgivings since India has shunned the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meant to stop the spread and production of nuclear weapons and mandate gradual disarmament, and a companion test ban pact.

Washington says the fuel and technology deal would forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet rising energy demand in an environmentally sound way and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

A Siddique, "The NSG's sobering message," The Daily Mail, September 3, 2008.

[This report from Pakistan mentions some details about the Canadian negotiating position. -jlt]

Canada, Japan and Australia want inclusion of tighter exemption notes in the NSG waiver insisting upon the denial of enrichment and reprocessing technologies that would facilitate India to quantitatively upgrade her nuclear weapons program. Some countries, including Canada have also recommended institutionalization of a monitoring or review mechanism to ensure that India, which has primarily rested her case for the Indo – US Nuclear Deal on acquisition of nuclear based energy, should not misuse the technology for advancing her nuclear weapons program.

THE 45 member NSG plenary meeting, held in Vienna from 21 – 22 August, to clear the way for the highly paradoxical Indo US Nuclear Deal, has come about as a major disappointment to India as well as US. Not unexpectedly, many areas of discord emerged making the session inconclusive and the forum dispersed to meet again on Sep 5-6 in Vienna. A hint of disappointment, even frustration was in the air; not that the resistance was unexpected. This was made obvious by the emergence of an unmistakable edge to the tone of Indian officials and the hint of self righteous, even overbearing Indian rhetoric, directed at the countries who called into question the rationale of the waiver recommended by US to bring India into mainstream of nuclear trade. Some emerging deadlines, too, imparted a touch of make or break urgency to the ambience. With the approaching US elections scheduled in November this year as well as the convening of the Congress session due for 8 September and lasting till 26, the clock is beginning to tick for the deal. Bush Administration is keen to wrap it up as a major foreign policy feather in the cap before the President turns into a lame duck and the matter is referred to the new administration for consideration.

It is ironic that the NSG which controls the sale of nuclear technology world wide, and is now deliberating the modalities of opening its doors to India, came into being specifically in response to the nuclear detonations by India in 1974. There was a wide spread indignation then that India had grossly misused the nuclear reactor provided by US and Canada for civilian nuclear research to purloin plutonium that was used for developing a nuclear device. It speaks of the change in the global imperatives that NSG was meeting now in Vienna to debate the proposed draft US waiver that would open for India the route to trade in nuclear technology and materials without signing the NPT.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Explain again how India's nukes are unique. Canada decides not to "step up."

According to Anil Kakodkar, the Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, his country has already harmonized its export control requirements with that of Nuclear Suppliers Group. All India wants now is a clean and unconditional waiver. Out of the penalty box indeed.

"NSG guidelines require comprehensive safeguards applicable only to NPT countries and since India has both civil and military programmes [and has not signed the NPT and doesn't propose to], we have a unique position.

"Therefore, such comprehensive safeguards are not relevant to India. Therefore clean exemption is what we are seeking," Kakodkar said, adding, "NSG should exempt India from the requirement of comprehensive safeguards and add no other conditions."

A special meeting of the NSG is scheduled for August 21.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors has already cut a special set of rules that applies only to India.

"Conditions will only take away from one hand what has been given from the other," he said.

Indian columnist Shobori Ganguli argues that

"India has already committed itself to the non-proliferation regime de facto through the 123 Agreement which is bound by the Hyde Act and the IAEA safeguards bound by the Additional Protocol. Both these documents are clear that nuclear cooperation would cease between India and the US as also with other countries if non-proliferation norms are violated."

India's Economic Times sees a "gang" of countries standing between India and a "clean" NSG waiver and describes this opposition as "temper tantrums" by the countries involved.

Japan, for instance, may insist on India acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, steps also proposed by Ernie Regehr at the Canadian NGO Project Ploughshares though NGOs are no part of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Indications from the earlier negotiations at the IAEA are that Ireland and Austria want similar commitments to the NPT and the CTBT.

According to Ganguli, "New Delhi is comfortable as long as this remains a "request". Were it to become a "condition" for an NSG waiver, the Manmohan Singh Government could well face some discomfort." She believes that Japan will ultimately agree, having as big an economic interest in nuclear trade with India as anyone else.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington, DC-based Arms Control Association, told India Abroad that India's desire for a "clear waiver" was "a fantasy." Kimball believes that "the NSG countries are going to insist upon some commonsense restrictions on nuclear trade with India and conditions that are roughly similar to the major requirements set forth in the Hyde Act."

Kimball names Austria, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland among those who have "qualms." Canada is not on that list.

Last November a Canadian Foreign Affairs Departmental Performance report said, "If the Nuclear Suppliers Group agrees to exempt India from it's guidelines, Canada will pursue nuclear co-operation with India, which would provide substantial commercial opportunities for Canada." (Embassy Aug 6 08)

Kam Rathee, president and executive director of Canada-India Business Council, finds the fault with Canada, not India. Referring to the Harper government's secrecy about its position, Rathee says if Canada does vote against the lifting of nuclear exemptions, relations with India will be irrevocably damaged.

"It's like an engagement which will not turn into marriage if we don't work with India on this one. We need to show our good faith in this," he said


However, Kimball finds the Indian press "very accommodating to the official stand of the government." He explains in some detail why the NSG is unlikely to come to a final decision in time for the US Congress to act before elections in November. Read the whole interview here =>

Ironically, the Nuclear Suppliers Group was established in 1974 following India's surprise detonation of a nuclear explosive on May 18 as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The test gave the lie to the illusion long held by and actively promoted by many in the nuclear establishment that that nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could not be used for warlike purposes.

It is believed that India began work on a thermonuclear device in the 1980s and after not testing for 24 years, resumed tests of devices including thermonuclear devices in April 1998, after Pakistan's test-firing of its Ghauri missile.

What makes India unique is the particular style of sophistry that has been used to cover for its nuclear program. What is not unique is the opportunity that one and all see as just about the only salvation for the failing global economy. Like the arms trade, nuclear traffic occurs between states and large corporations well beyond the influence of normal market forces or democratic processes. Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Campbell Clark, "Canada changes nuclear policy to accommodate India," Globe and Mail, August 1, 2008.

[When the going get's serious, Canadian politicians resort to sports metaphors. Remember Stephen Harper's reason why we were not going to cut and run in Afghanistan? It was time for Canada to "step up to the plate" and that couldn't be done "from the bleachers," games played I guess before lunch at the nuclear country club. There is a little problem of Indian companies that provided dual use technology to Saddam Hussein, but only Pakistan mentions that in discussions about India as a "responsible" nuclear proliferator. (An explosion, not a bomb.) What do you think is next? blessings for Israel's "ambiguous" proliferation? or a permanent seat on the Security Council for India? -jlt]

“...you can't keep somebody in the penalty box forever.”

David Emerson
Canada's Foreign Minister

OTTAWA — Canada has changed its policy on nuclear non-proliferation to accommodate India's entry into the club of countries that can trade openly in nuclear fuel and technology, despite its nuclear weapons programs.

India's emergence as an economic power is one reason Canada is overlooking concerns about making it an exception to the world's non-proliferation rules, despite Pakistan's warning it could spark an Asian arms race and Canada's own sour history with India's nuclear ambitions.

Canadian reactor technology, donated in the 1950s, was used to make India's first atomic bomb, tested in 1974. That cooled relations between Canada and India, ended nuclear exchanges and triggered new efforts by nuclear suppliers around the world to prevent arms proliferation.

Canada supported a nuclear-inspection plan for India that was approved by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on Friday, a plan required to implement a controversial U.S.-India deal on civil nuclear co-operation.

And Canada is now expected to back an exemption for India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group at a meeting being planned for later this month, which would clear the way for India to begin importing nuclear technology and fuel such as uranium.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"Letter to Manmohan Singh from U.S. Congress," May 2, 2007.

Members of Congress including the Chairman Tom Lantos and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Reps. Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Ike Pence, Edward Royce, Brad Sherman, wrote a letter, dated May 2, 2007, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, expressing grave concern about India’s cooperation with Iran. In the letter, they expressed deep concern about India's relations with Iran, warned that the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal might be jeopardized by the continuation of these relations, and also expressed grave concern about illegal efforts to procure sensitive technology for India's ballistic missile program. They demanded that India "cease illicit procurement activities in the U.S., sever military cooperation with Iran, and terminate India's participation in the development of Iran's energy sector.

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Prime Minister Singh:

We are writing to express our grave concern regarding several recent developments that, if left unaddressed, have the potential to significantly harm prospects for the establishment of the "global partnership" between the United States and India that you and President Bush announced on July 18th, 2005 and for peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries.

As you are aware, on April 2nd, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted several individuals in the United States for allegedly conspiring with the government of India - including an employee of the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. - to illegally procure sensitive technology for India's ballistic missile program. This activity, which apparently occurred as recently as April 2006, appears to be a significant violation of India's September 2004 pledge not to "obtain or use U.S. origin licensable items in contravention of U.S. export control laws and regulations" and is inconsistent with efforts to increase the level of trust between our two nations.

Regarding Iran, we are deeply concerned by India's increasing cooperation with that country, including the exchange of visits between high-level officials, enhanced military ties, and negotiation of agreements to establish closer economic relations.

Read the rest of the letter here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

D.S.Rajan, "Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Beijing Harps on US ‘containment’ Theory," Chennai Centre for China Studies, July 24, 2008.

China is expected to maintain a careful watch on whether the deal can lead to strengthening of India’s nuclear weapon programme at a level capable of competing with China or threatening its ally Pakistan. What stand Beijing will adopt...particularly based on its perceived arms race in the region, is likely to generate great interest in India.

While the Party and State- controlled media in China have so far confined themselves to giving a factual account of the trust vote in New Delhi on the nuclear deal with the US, an authoritative and well-connected strategic affairs journal in Chinese language, has chosen to come out with a prompt independent comment on the subject. Appearing at a time when there are expectations of Beijing’s support to India’s case in the Nuclear suppliers Group (NSG), what has been said in the comment assumes significance.

The commentary, under the caption “ India extends hand, the US is to hold”, written by “Zhan Lue” (“Strategy” in English), ostensibly by a high level party cadre, has remarked (China Institute of International Strategic Studies, Beijing, Chinese language Online Edition, 23 July 2008) that the deal which was being considered almost dead due to the opposition coming from the ‘anti-American’ communist groups supporting the ‘Centrist government’, could be rescued by Prime Minister Singh through his act of ‘adventure and courage’; he could replace the erstwhile support of the communist groups with that of ‘regional small parties”. With the Prime Minister winning the trust vote in the Indian Parliament on 22 July 2008, a question, which remains, is whether the deal can now successfully go through the political process in the US. The write-up admitted that several legal questions may confront the deal in the US, but at the same time felt that the US Congress should be able to find time to express support for the deal, as overall it suits Washington’s interests.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

B.Raman, "Nuclear Trade With India : China’s Role in NSG," Chennai Centre for China Studies, July 24, 2008.

[This paper from India raises the possibility, perhaps unintentionally, that approval of nuclear trade between Indian and the US will open the door to a permanent seat for India on the UN Security Council because

Pakistan has suggested to China that the two should co-ordinate their positions at Vienna just as they had co-ordinated their positions on the issue of permanent membership of the UN Security Council for India.

The next three steps in India’s quest for civilian nuclear energy would be the approval of the draft of the India-specific safeguards agreement jointly prepared by officials of the Government of India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by the Board of Governors of the IAEA before it is formally signed by India and the IAEA, a consensus in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) on the removal of the restrictions on nuclear trade with India and the approval of the agreement (known as the 123 agreement) reached by the officials of the US and India by the US Congress.


2. While the decisions of the IAEA and the NSG would determine the conditions under which the member-countries of the IAEA and the NSG would trade with India in civilian nuclear matters, the US Congress would decide the conditions under which the US would trade with India in the nuclear field.

Read the rest, including the annexed earlier paper, here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Hon. Douglas Roche calls on leaders to stop US-India nuclear trade deal," Middle Powers Initiative, July 23, 2008.

This proposal would reverse a 30-year policy of the United States of restricting nuclear-related exports to India...the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to agree to waive rules on nuclear transfers to states without full-scope safeguards.

National and Global Leaders Must Stop the US/India Nuclear Trade Deal, Says MPI Chairman

July 23, 2008: The proposed U.S.-India nuclear trade deal would critically undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty and must be stopped, former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, Chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative, said today.

“MPI calls once again on all relevant governments and international authorities to use their authority to stop the agreement from being reached,” Senator Roche said.

On July 22, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh narrowly survived a no-confidence motion by a vote of 275 to 256 after two days of bitter debate, heckling of the Prime Minister and widespread charges of vote-buying. More than a domestic issue, this vote clears the way for vote on the nuclear deal with the US.

The arrangement, first proposed by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh in 2005, would have India accept safeguards on civilian – but not military – nuclear facilities in return for access to the global market of civilian nuclear fuel and technology. This proposal would reverse a 30-year policy of the United States of restricting nuclear-related exports to India, which has never joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Should this agreement go through, it will undercut a founding principle of the NPT: the sharing of nuclear technology should be limited to non-nuclear weapon states who have foresworn nuclear weapons by joining the treaty. By striking a special deal with India, the United States is undercutting a primary rationale for non-nuclear weapon states for joining the NPT.

The Middle Powers Initiative insists that this is not merely an agreement that can be struck between the two heads of state. Besides the Indian parliament, the US House and Senate must vote on the deal. Internationally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) needs to conclude a special safeguard agreement with India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has to agree to waive rules on nuclear transfers to states without full-scope safeguards. The IAEA Board of Governors meets in August and the NSG meets in September. Afterwards, the proposal goes back to the US Congress.

“All these bodies have a responsibility to refuse to support this ill-conceived proposal. In particular, we call on members of the NSG, which must make this decision unanimously, to reject the deal,” Senator Roche said.

MPI maintains that the United States and India must show absolute commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation before this agreement can be completed without damaging the NPT. The US and India must sign and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a verifiable Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. In addition, India must make a formal declaration accepting the NPT obligation of good-faith negotiation for the elimination of nuclear weapons.Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Ernie Regehr, "Decision time for India's nuclear exemption," Globe and Mail, July 24, 2008.

At a minimum, India should be required to make three basic commitments in order to qualify for civilian nuclear co-operation: a freeze on testing until the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty includes a permanent ban; a verifiable freeze on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes until a Fissile Materials Treaty includes a permanent ban; and formal acceptance of the disarmament obligations in Article VI of the NPT.

So the on-again, off-again U.S.-India civilian nuclear co-operation deal is back on, although just barely. Tuesday, after a raucous two-day debate complete with cash-for-votes charges, the Indian Parliament voted confidence in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's government and the nuclear deal on which he staked his administration.

The deal is intended to lift the prohibitions on civilian nuclear trade with India that were imposed after the country's warhead tests in 1974 and 1998. Arms control critics of the deal hoped it would ultimately fade away in the face of strong opposition within India itself — opposition based not on proliferation concerns but on the fear that it would tie New Delhi's foreign policy too closely to Washington's. But now, with parliamentary endorsement, the deal moves on to face two multilateral tests.

In early August, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency will consider, and now likely approve, a new safeguards agreement with India that will cover civilian nuclear facilities to be newly designated as such under the deal.

The key test may come in September at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, where Canada and 44 other members will be asked to exempt India from a foundational non-proliferation rule that precludes civilian nuclear co-operation with any state that does not adhere to full-scope safeguards. India fails the full-scope safeguards test because some of its nuclear facilities are not and will not be safeguarded — namely, those reserved for its weapons program.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"Canada needs to say no to US-India nuclear deal," Asia Pacific Post, July 16, 2008.

While working with India, the tax-dollar guzzling Atomic Energy of Canada was training Pakistan’s nuclear scientists and engineers in Karachi, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Uranium miners from Canada’s northwest to the Australian outback are rubbing their hands with glee as the United States pushes for a nuclear deal with India.

Coming off one of their worst years, the deal will boost uranium demand worldwide and experts say the price will rise as fast as oil this year.

Canada is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and is being asked to sanction the deal.


The deal, being pushed by outgoing U.S. President George Bush, will make billions for the countries involved in the form of uranium exports, reactor sales and technology transfers.

It will also make this world a more dangerous place.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

B. Raman, " Muslims & The Pre-Election Political Scene in India," South Asia Analysis Group, July 18, 2008.

[Muslim chat groups on the Internet] have noted that not only the leftist parties, but even the Indian political class as a whole and the Indian elite have maintained a silence over the recent public execution of two Uighurs, the arrest of about 80 others and the forcible closure of 40 mosques by the Chinese.... they have noted the energetic manner in which Indian public opinion reacted to the repression of the Tibetans, but maintained a discreet silence on the repression of the Muslims.

As the date (July 22, 2008) for the vote of confidence from the Lok Sabha in the Manmohan Government nears and as the possibility of a premature election to the Lok Sabha looms large, a question often debated is the attitude of the Indian Muslims to the Indo-US nuclear deal. Do they regard it as anti-Muslim because of the perceived anti-Muslim policies of the administration of President George Bush? That is the question which has been raised again and again by the critics of the deal and of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.

In this connection, it would be pertinent to take note of the attitude of the Muslims in the Ummah as a whole since that could have an impact on the attitude of the Indian Muslims. The strongest criticism of India's developing relations with the US came from sections of the Muslims of the Ummah immediately after the visit of Bush to India in March, 2006. The criticism was not specific relating to the nuclear deal. It was more in relation to what they saw as India's co-operation with the US and Israel in the war against jihadi terrorism. They noted with anger and surprise the reluctance of different political formations in India---in the rulling alliance as well as in the opposition--- to criticise the allegedly inhuman conditions in which Muslims arrested in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the world on suspicion of belonging to Al Qaeda were kept in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba and denied the basic human rights and the benefits of the due process of the law. Even the former Tony Blair Government of the UK, which was very supportive of the policies of the Bush Administration, expressed its discomfort over the conditions in which the Muslim detenus were kept in the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and in May 2006 publicly called for winding up the Centre and transfering the detenus to the custody of the American civilian authorities from the custody of the military authorities. A similar demand has been voiced by many other democratic countries, by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by all human rights organisations of the West without exception. India's silence in this matter as well as over the repeated air strikes by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, which killed a large number of civilians, was an important source of anger. This silence was seen as the inevitable outcome of the growing Indo-US strategic relationship.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Ameen Izzadeen, "Is Manmohan Singh bound to the burning Bush?" Daily Mirror, July 18, 2008.

[The view from Sri Lanka -jlt]

[...]

Why is Washington going all-out to help the nuclear programme of a country which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? Compare the US policy towards India with its policy towards Iran, which has signed the NPT. The United States is threatening Iran with military action if Teheran does not abandon its uranium enrichment programme. On the other hand, it rewards India, a country which possesses nuclear weapons, with US technical and financial assistance. Why did the Bush administration say 'no' when Pakistan made a request that a similar agreement be signed with Islamabad, too?

Answer: The US-India nuclear deal is largely to with US geo-strategic policies.

Given the United States' desire to militarily dominate the world with a neocolonialist economic agenda, it is widely believed that India is being dragged into a US military alliance against China. The nuclear agreement is designed to build up India as a monolith against China which is rising as the most powerful naval force in the Indian Ocean, even posing a challenge to the United States.

To make India a powerful check against the Red Army requires massive transfer of military equipment to India. At present, US sanctions imposed after India's 1974 and 1998 nuclear tests block transfer of strategic equipment and technology to India. If India goes ahead with signing agreements with the IAEA and the NSG, it will allow the US government to remove impediments that block transfer and sale of military and nuclear technology to India.

China, on its part, is not unaware of the US agenda. However, it has intensified trade and diplomatic relations with India to defeat the US scheme. But a section of India's foreign policy mandarins, who have been highly Americanised, believe that India's future lies in close cooperation with the United States. Remember Ronen Sen, India's ambassador in Washington when the deal was being negotiated. He hit out at his countrymen who said that the deal would impinge on India's sovereignty as "headless chicken".

The Americans are not ruffled by the prospect of Manmohan Singh losing the July 22 no-faith motion. If the Singh government is defeated, they have a stauncher ally — the BJP, which, with its Hindutva zeal, feels it is Washington's natural ally in the fight against the so-called Islamic terror.

In the United States, the strongest advocates of the nuclear deal are the pro-capitalist, pro-Zionist neoconservatives or neocons, who are responsible for more than 1.3 million deaths in Iraq in the past five years and bloodshed in countries like Afghanistan and Lebanon. One of the chief promoters of the deal was US Vice President Dick Cheney who is said to have used his coercive diplomacy to get Singh to agree to the deal.

Read the whole article here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"India nuclear ties need full debate," Toronto Star, July 13, 2008.

India, like Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, is a nuclear maverick. These countries all have the Bomb but do not adhere to the full range of international protocols to prevent the spread of such weapons. New Delhi built its first bomb in 1974 by misusing Canadian civilian nuclear technology. It exploded others in 1998 (as did Pakistan).

Six months ago there was a slim chance that public pressure on Harper government not to approve the US-India nuclear deal either at the IAEA or NSG level might have had a slim chance of getting somewhere. Harper was initially cool to the idea. There might even have been some chance of dividing the government, maybe even brining it down if anyone could be found who was interested in that. Obama told the Indian news magazine Outlook, "I voted for the US-India nuclear agreement because India is a strong democracy and a natural strategic partner for the US in the 21st century." From here it looks like the deal is done except for the posturing and hand-wringing. But then a month ago, it seemed to be dead in the water. -jlt

U.S. President George Bush may be in a hurry to sign a controversial pact to sell India nuclear technology and fuel before he leaves office early next year. And the U.S. has lobbied for the support of Canada, Australia and other allies. But there is no guarantee the deal will get approved by India's parliament in a scheduled July 22 vote, much less by the U.S. Congress during Bush's tenure.

If Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain inherit the file, he will face pressure from arms control advocates to insist that India accept strict conditions on the deal.

Given this uncertainty, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be wise to move cautiously before giving Canada's assent to the deal.

Read the rest of the Reuters story here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"Nuclear deal: PM is the lone supporting voice," Business Standard, June 13, 2008.

The government's main interlocutor with the Left parties on the Indo-US nuclear deal — Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee — has, in the last ten days, spoken at least twice on the issue to the media. He has reiterated the need to tap nuclear energy but has remained evasive on the fate of the 123 Agreement between India and the US for civilian nuclear cooperation.

This seems to be a signal that the Congress-led UPA has succumbed to the harsh fact that the deal, its biggest international venture, will bite the dust as the Left remains sceptical. CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechuri said today: "The UPA-Left committee will meet but there is no question of agreeing to the government's stand."

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who said domestic difficulties were holding up the deal, could be the Congress' lone voice still pushing for the deal, said top sources in the party. Congress President Sonia Gandhi has also been apprised of the ground reality that it is almost impossible to save the deal. Gandhi and her top party managers have also decided that they will not go ahead with the deal at the cost of losing the Left's support.

Read the rest here =>

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Nuclear testing practically guaranteed

An editorial yesterday (Economic Times Jun 10 08) urges the Indian government to “go for the nuke deal.” As Indian elections are due in about a year, “the nuclear deal is well worth sacrificing the government for,” the Economic Times argues.

“There is no harm in the UPA continuing as a minority government for another seven to eight months....After signing the deal the Congress will still have time to politically explain how cheaper and cleaner nuclear energy can light up lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of India’s villages.”

India needs the 2005 accord with the US in order to end a three-decade ban on importing U.S. technology and fuel without ratifying to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal with the US must be endorsed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and sent to the US Congress for approval.

Some ways of framing the issue (Bloomberg) argue that the US-India nuclear deal will die if Congress doesn't approve it before the November presidential election in the US.

Canada needs the deal to open up India's markets for Canadian uranium, Canadian enrichment plants, and CANDU reactors. Canada is the largest uranium exporter in the world. Canadian negotiators at the Nuclear Suppliers Group recently persuaded the US to allow international sales of enrichment plants in another dramatic change of American policy.

India used a Canadian research reactor and Canadian and US uranium to develop its first nuclear explosive. India is conveniently regarded as a “responsible non-proliferator” even though Indian companies sold nuclear technology to Saddam Hussein.

American companies have uranium and pressurized water reactors for sale too.

The failure of the accord will derail $14 billion of orders for reactors from suppliers including General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. and hamper India's plans to increase nuclear generation almost 10-fold... (Thomas and Johnson Bloomberg Jun 11 08)

More important, the US wants India onside as a geopolitical counterweight to China's rising power in the region. This is the point on which negotiations have bogged down among Indian politicians.

China and Russia started re-building their militaries after Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (June 13, 2002).

The Australian government recently announced that it would not allow the sale of uranium to India unless India acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has made it clear that India has no intention to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). That is one of many treaties the US has also refused to sign.

Protecting India's sovereignty and retaining the right to test nuclear weapons in the future was at the heart of the Indian parliament's debate about the meaning of the US Hyde Act. Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Nilova Roy Chaudhury, "No NPT, no uranium: Australia," Hindustan Times,

[This, or something like it, is the position the Canadian government should have taken on the US-Indian nuclear deal. But the press here can scarcely be bothered to report on it. The article below, first posted on January 14, 2008, is being run again on June 9, 2008 (tomorrow). An article published yesterday, by the same paper, points out that India itself has identified enough undeveloped uranium reserves "to run all of India’s current and planned nuclear power plants for their entire lifetime of 40 years. In the context of the bitter political debate in India over taking N-fuel from the US, the irony is inescapable." -jlt]

On the eve of the crucial fourth and probably decisive round of talks on an India-specific set of safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), India suffered a setback when the Australian government refused to sell it uranium. The new Labour government categorically told India there could be no sale of uranium to a country that was not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Australia is a member of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), from which India would have to get a waiver if it seeks to operationalise the civil nuclear agreement with the United States and begin nuclear commerce.

Read the rest here =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content