India-US nuclear deal 'at risk'

[tony mitra]

BBC News

India-US nuclear deal 'at risk'

Indian PM Manmohan Singh has told US President George W Bush he is having difficulty implementing a controversial nuclear deal with the United States.

Mr Singh had briefed Mr Bush by phone on Monday, a government statement said.
Differences between the Congress-led government and its allies over the deal has led to talk of early elections.

It is the first clear sign India may shelve the deal, which could end its international isolation on the nuclear issue and provide a key energy source.
The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says it appears the Indian government does not want to face a snap election.

The Congress party's communist allies say the deal, which would allow India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel, gives the US leverage on India's foreign policy.

Difficulties

After many weeks during which the government insisted it would press ahead with the deal, it now appears to have backtracked in the face of opposition, our correspondent says.

Mr Singh, on an official visit to Africa, called Mr Bush and discussed the nuclear deal, among other things, according to a government release.
"The prime minister explained to President Bush that certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalisation of the India-US civil nuclear co-operation agreement," the release said.

Mr Singh said last week that the nuclear agreement was "an honourable deal that is good for India and good for the world".

He said, however, that if the deal did not come through, he would be disappointed - but he could live with it.

"One has to live with certain disappointments. We are not a one-issue government. The deal not coming through is not the end of life," he added.

"The government is trying to reconcile the divergent points of view on the issue within the ruling coalition."

Internal processes

The deal has also been criticised by many outside India.
Under the landmark nuclear deal, India is allowed to reprocess spent nuclear fuel - something that is seen as a major concession and opposed by some members of the US Congress as India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

US state department spokesman Tom Casey said his government wanted the deal done as quickly as possible, "but that's within the context of what each country has to do and has to accomplish".

But he added: "I'm not going to try and tell the Indians how to manage their own internal processes."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7046314.stm

Published: 2007/10/16 11:38:24 GMT
© BBC MMVII
-------------------------------------------

Well, that was from the BBC.

Meanwhile, the chief of the UN watchdog on nuclear proliferation, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei had been visiting India last week, talking to politicians, scientists and the press, apparently in an attempt to put India at ease that approval of IAEA on the nuclear deal would be a rather straight forward issue and that India has much to gain and nothing to lose, to go ahead with the deal.

Apparently, the effort did not work. The concern for the people inside the ruling Government as well as outside, seemed less to do with the nuclear deal itself, but rather on an issue of greater long term significance, i.e. if the Indian Government was being coaxed to give up its independent and neutral foreign policy and to align itself closely with the US world view, but just economically, but also ideologically and strategically.

Meanwhile, Robyn Meredith, who covers the rising economies of China and India for Forbes, and the author of the acclaimed book “The Elephant and the Dragon” has claimed that we are facing a tri-polar world within one generation, and that the US, China and India, while engaged with each other in trade, will be the superpowers influencing the world economically, ideologically and culturally, if not militarily. And that the US seems keen to develop a ground breaking US-India alliance to deal with that future.

So, OK. Any comments?
:)

[lily]

Well.....I didn't think they should be handed this deal without being signers of the NPT to begin with. The reason given really did shock me when I read it though.

Meanwhile, Robyn Meredith, who covers the rising economies of China and India for Forbes, and the author of the acclaimed book “The Elephant and the Dragon” has claimed that we are facing a tri-polar world within one generation, and that the US, China and India, while engaged with each other in trade, will be the superpowers influencing the world economically, ideologically and culturally, if not militarily. And that the US seems keen to develop a ground breaking US-India alliance to deal with that future.

I think this is going to depend on the leadership of who gets elected here in the next two elections. I have no doubt China is going to be a superpower and with their close alliance with Russia, that's going to also bring them into the picture.

[tony mitra]

Well, I support your notion, Lily, that they (India) should not be handed the deal unless they signed the NPT.

But the strangeness of the going on is that the US is not asking India to sign it, and is willing to hand over the deal without India doing anything at all towards promoting NPT.

Even more strange, India, who apparently should have nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the deal, is still balking at it.

Both those would seem to defy normal logic, which is why some folks believe that the nuclear deal itself is not the main issue here. There is something more that none of them is talking about, and it is that something which India perhaps finds unacceptable, in spite of the sweetener of the nuclear deal.

[lily]

The Congress party's communist allies say the deal, which would allow India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel, gives the US leverage on India's foreign policy.

Well, this is the reason we're given. Sounds feasible especially with the way we are viewed now.......but in the back of my head, I think they think they could get a better "deal" from Russia. It's already been given US "approval".......or they could be stalling for the next election.

[tony mitra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vGwW5wwl3s

Above is a fair and impartial view of the issue, from the point of view of, in my way of saying, a western anti-weapon public opinion. However, the US Govt apparently does not agree with it, and appears rather too keen to somehow wriggle a nation as large as India, through the loophole and help them with nuclear technology even when India will not sign or do anything required within the NPT protocol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXtMcD-g1Ew

Here is another short one on the "Hyde Act" that was passed through the US congress, and attempts to ensure good behavior of India through annual verification process by the US congress, as a pre-condition for the nuke deal to be continued. As the commentator states, some objectors claim that the wordings of the nuke deal (which remains kind of secret till now) is designed to help India bypass the Hyde act. On the other hand, the same Hyde Act has been touted within the Indian parliament as proof that the US intends to influence India's independent foreign policy by dangling the carrot of the nuke deal, and in essence this is tantamount to India forfeiting its sovereignty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6h26MSxo8w

And here is a very brief news article showing how IAEA chief Mr. ElBaradei's visit to India was so timely, exactly when the Indian Government was at risk of collapsing on this issue of the nuke deal, whereby opposition to this deal was threatening to unseat the Government and force a fresh election. It was hoped that the IAEA chiefs assurance would cool the tension and allow the India Govt to survive the crisis and still go through with the deal. The effort apparently did not succeed.

There are lots of other U Tubes by parlimentarians themselves speaking on mike about their views, not much to do with nuclear power, or reprocessing, or weapon making or anything particularly related to the nuclear technology. Their main objection seems multifaceted, but all related to US intending to use this deal and others like it, to influence India to move away from its own national interest, whether to do with Gas pipeline from iran, or to join USA in military engagements in third countries, or opening the Indian agricultural sectors to genetically modified US patented seed stock, to allowing Walmart and other corporations to come and toss the millions of mom and pop shop owners out on the street or gigantic corporate farms to render the poor farmers out of a job and all kinds of related issues.

Indian politicians opposing the deal, demanded that the Government engage is a full disclosure and a vigorous debate covering the issue on the floor of the parliament and let the members of parliament cast their votes in agreement or disagreement of the implication of this deal. The Government refused to open a debate, since it is not legally bound to.

The left parties then threatened to pull their support of the Government, forcing a collapse of the Government and a fresh election, whereby all the opponents, left, right and in between, wanted to take the issues related right to the public and the voters, and let them decide if the deal should be followed through or not.

The Government of India did not want to face a fresh election at this point of time. So, when it had to choose between its survival, and the nuke deal, it chose to survive for now, thereby putting the deal on ice, much to their regret, by making it official and calling up Mr. Bush.

We have not heard the last of it though. And indeed the implications might just be more than the nuke deal itself, since it is quite inconceivable why USA should agree to this clearly one sided deal in favor of India, and also counter to NPT doctrine and counter to non proliferation efforts.

Cheers and thanks to Lily for showing me how to include an U Tube video.
:)

[tony mitra]

And here is another official version, albeit published a few days before India officially put the deal on ice. This is from Mr. R. Nicholas Burns, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

It was published in the current issue of the periodical "Foreign Affairs".

Summary: The rise of a democratic and increasingly powerful India is a positive development for U.S. interests. Rarely has the United States shared so many interests and values with a growing power as we do today with India. By reaching out to India, we have made the bet that the future lies in pluralism, democracy, and market economics.

America's Strategic Opportunity With India

As we Americans consider our future role in the world, the rise of a democratic and increasingly powerful India represents a singularly positive opportunity to advance our global interests. There is a tremendous strategic upside to our growing engagement with India. That is why building a close U.S.-India partnership should be one of the United States' highest priorities for the future. It is a unique opportunity with real promise for the global balance of power.

We share an abundance of political, economic, and military interests with India today. Our open societies face similar threats from terrorism and organized crime. Our market-based economies embrace trade and commerce as engines of prosperity. Our peoples value education and a strong work ethic. We share an attachment to democracy and individual rights founded on an instinctive mistrust of authoritarianism. And in an age of anti-Americanism, according to the most recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, nearly six in ten Indians view the United States favorably.

In the past decade, both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush recognized this opportunity and acted to construct a completely new foundation for U.S. ties with India. Our relationship with India now is our fastest-developing friendship with any major country in the world. I have visited India eight times in the last two years to help construct this partnership. I have seen firsthand the remarkable growth in trust between the leaderships of the two countries. I have also observed the corresponding explosion in private-sector ties, the greatest strength in the relationship. The progress between the United States and India has been remarkable: a new and historic agreement on civil nuclear energy, closer collaboration on scientific and technological innovation, burgeoning trade and commercial links, common efforts to stabilize South Asia, and a growing U.S.-India campaign to promote stable, well-governed democracies around the world. And the United States is only just beginning to realize the benefits of this relationship for its interests in South and East Asia.

Still, there are obstacles that the United States and India need to overcome before they can attain a true global partnership. The two countries need to work more effectively to counter terrorism, drug trafficking, and nuclear proliferation. Progress so far has shown how effectively we can work together to settle past differences and meet future challenges. If it is sustained, we will have an even greater opportunity to put American and Indian principles and power together and shape a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous global community.


MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

The realization of this vision of a broad U.S.-India friendship has long eluded U.S. presidents and Indian prime ministers. When India broke free from the British Raj 60 years ago, it was entirely reasonable to think that the United States would become one of India's foremost friends and partners. President Franklin Roosevelt had been an ardent champion of India's cause; many Americans saw the vision of the United States' separation from the British Empire reflected in the hopes and dreams of Indian freedom fighters.

But despite some successes in those early years, U.S.-India relations during the postwar period consisted largely of missed opportunities. The two countries found a common connection as large multiethnic, multireligious democracies. The United States was India's largest aid donor in the first decades after its independence; collaborated on India's extraordinary "green revolution," which helped end India's famines; and rushed military assistance to India during its border war with China in 1962. Yet none of this was enough to bridge the chasm of the Cold War. From the American point of view, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's nonalignment policy and warm relations with the Soviet Union made close political cooperation unachievable, and Nehru's mostly autarkic socialist economic policies limited trade and investment ties. President Richard Nixon's "tilt" toward Pakistan in 1971 and India's "Smiling Buddha" nuclear test in 1974 planted the United States and India squarely on opposite sides of the political and nonproliferation barricades.

As is so often the case with proud and great countries, this rather bitter history overwhelmed efforts to mend fences and postponed the long-desired partnership between India and the United States. Even as the Cold War came to an end, Washington focused on deepening its alliances with Europe and Japan and engaging a rising China. India was left off the list of U.S. foreign policy priorities.

But all that is history. Over the past 15 years, three significant developments have helped bring about the recent dramatic strengthening of U.S.-India ties. First, the end of the Cold War removed the U.S.-Soviet rivalry as the principal focus of U.S. foreign relations and the rationale for India's nonalignment policy. Second, India's historic economic reforms of the early 1990s, led by Manmohan Singh, then finance minister and now prime minister, opened India to the global economy for the first time and catalyzed the extraordinary boom in private-sector trade and investment between the United States and India that continues today. Finally, as the twenty-first century began, the global order started to undergo a tectonic shift, and India's emergence as a global force was obvious for all to see.

The arrival of globalization as a defining feature of the age caused Americans to understand that Washington needs like-minded global allies to succeed in an increasingly interdependent world. As Washington thought about how best to contend with the greatest of globalization's challenges -- international drug and other criminal cartels, trafficking in women and children, climate change, and especially the rise of terrorism and its potential intersection with weapons of mass destruction -- it became clear to most of us in the U.S. government that we needed to combine forces with powerful emerging countries such as India (Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa are others) to respond to these threats. In this radically changed global landscape, the basic interests of India and the United States -- the world's largest democracy and the world's oldest -- increasingly converged.

That this new U.S.-India partnership is supported by a bipartisan consensus in both countries considerably strengthens the prospects for its success. In India, both the ruling Indian National Congress and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party have worked for over a decade to elevate India's ties with the United States. In the United States, shortly after the beginning of India's economic liberalization, President Clinton signaled Washington's desire to forge a new era of commerce and investment between the two countries. And after India's May 1998 nuclear tests, then Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott engaged India's then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, in 14 rounds of talks over two and a half years. Talbott's negotiations with Singh were Washington's first truly sustained strategic engagement with the Indian leadership.

When he entered office in 2001, President Bush recognized early on the power and importance of India's large and vibrant democracy in global politics. He essentially doubled the United States' strategic bet on India, pursuing an uncommonly ambitious and wide-ranging opening toward it and displaying the courage and foresight to take on the complex nonproliferation issues that had separated the two countries for three decades. President Bush called for the two countries to jump-start their relationship in four strategic areas: civil nuclear energy, civilian space programs, high-tech commerce, and missile defense.

NUCLEAR SPRING

When Condoleezza Rice visited India in March 2005, shortly after taking office as secretary of state, she set out to lay a new cornerstone for the transformed relationship. She emphasized to Prime Minister Singh that the United States would alter its long-held framework that tied and balanced its relations with "India-Pakistan." We would effectively "de-hyphenate" our South Asia policy by seeking highly individual relations with both India and Pakistan. That meant an entirely new and comprehensive engagement between the United States and India. Secretary Rice also told Prime Minister Singh that the United States would break with long-standing nonproliferation orthodoxy and work to establish full civil nuclear cooperation with energy-starved India.

At the start of President Bush's second term, we knew that the nuclear issue was the proverbial elephant in the room in the U.S. relationship with India. We also understood that resolving it would allow us to define a more truly ambitious partnership. India had decided not to participate in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in the 1970s, and the United States and other NPT countries had, for three decades, sanctioned India for developing a nuclear weapons program outside the NPT regime. The result was India's isolation from the rest of the world on all nuclear issues.

... continued.
-------------------------

Well, the article is rather long, but I guess you get the idea, at least the official version coming out of the US administration.

Cheers.
:)

[tony mitra]

FINANCIAL TIMES (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3816bf74-8592-11dc-8170-0000779fd2ac.html)

Paulson presses India over nuclear pact
By Jo Johnson in New Delhi and Krishna Guha in Mumbai

Published: October 28 2007 20:21 | Last updated: October 28 2007 20:21

Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, urged India on Sunday to move ahead with implementing a historic civilian nuclear deal between the two countries, pressing the Indian government to face down leftwing opponents of an agreement.

He also called on India to show leadership in world trade talks by demonstrating it was willing to negotiate sizeable reductions in non-agricultural tariffs.

Mr Paulson – the most senior American official to visit India since President George W. Bush in March 2006 – told local reporters that Washington believed the nuclear pact was a “very important deal”. He said: “I would just urge you to move forward as quickly as possible.”

The Treasury secretary also stressed that the US respected India’s decision-making process. He said: “You all have to work through your internal political decision. That is up to India.”

Mr Paulson emphasised the US desire to work with India on a wide range of issues, including financial sector liberalisation, trade and infrastructure finance. His remarks reflect the administration’s attempt to cajole India into not squandering the opportunity to cement the burgeoning ties between the two countries without pushing too hard and provoking a political backlash or making the entire new-found relationship hostage to the fate of the nuclear accord.

Senior US officials, led by Nicholas Burns, under-secretary for political affairs and principal negotiator of a deal, last week warned of the need to complete the proposed civilian nuclear accord by the year-end in order to avoid “damage” to the relationship between the countries.

The failure by Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, to hold firm on a deal has frustrated many US officials and prompted them privately to question India’s reliability as a strategic partner.

They point to the fact that Mr Bush and Mr Singh have twice publicly shaken hands on a deal.

Indian government ministers, meanwhile, have been showing fresh enthusiasm for the construction of an oil and gas pipeline to Iran, a project Washington fiercely opposes.

The four Communist parties that prop up the minority coalition government have called on Mr Singh to test support for the deal in parliament. The Congress party-led administration has hitherto resisted, fearing that it would fail to win a majority on the floor of the house.

--------------------------------

Well, it now looks that the opposition to the deal is seeping into various corners of the Indian political spectrum, and is slowly gathering support. The reason, the best I can guess, has little to do with nuclear power per se. One one side, there is doubt that the nuclear deal will do much to enhance India's total power needs of the future, with or without outside help, and a growing belief that India would need to find multiple answers to a growing energy need. Gas usage is looming larger for a couple of reasons, one of them is that gas has a lighter carbon footprint and therefore generates less greenhouse gases. The second reason is that India's geographical location makes piped gas from Iran an economically viable option, as long as Pakistan is willing to play ball and have the pipeline go through their territory, which also helps their own gas needs as well as extra income from transshipment chargers for the gas that reaches India.

USA is vehemently against this deal, and would like India to cancel it, in exchange for promise of help in the nuclear field. India is getting increasingly bugged at what it considers interfering with India's pressing needs for its own future. Also, most Indians do not consider Iran to be a potential threat to world security.

Things have reached a point where the ruling Congress party is no more sure that the motion of this nuclear deal with the US would get a simple majority in the Parliament. There are over 540 seats in the lower house, and a simple majority could require about 275 votes. The communists only control about 60. this means an more than 200 other parliamentarians are opposed to this deal at this point, and the tide is only gathering more strength.

Such is politics.

Cheers.
:)