[Sreekar]

'It's the most transparent deal in Indian history'
(source:rediff.com)


Naresh Chandra, former Indian Ambassador to the United States, is a pioneer in more ways than one. He successfully withstood the wrath of the the American nuclear non-proliferation lobby after the 1998 nuclear bomb tests by India. He was one of the key players in navigating the new Indo-US ties to a new high. The efforts, started by the A B Vajpayee government, will now culminate on October 4 when US Secretray of State Condoleezza Rice signs the Indo-US nuclear deal with Pranab Mukherjee.


Naresh Chandra was also a party to the then key Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks under the umbrella of Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). On the eve of the historic day, the ex-diplomat shares his views on the nuclear deal and its real impact.



What is the big picture you get after signing the nuclear deal? Will the Indian foreign policy change?
If anybody is arguing that India's foreign policy will be changing, then answer to this question is : so what? Some people argue against closer ties with bigger power or stronger power. But, to take it to the extreme that you can't have truck with the superpower is a self-defeating argument. Then, your neighbour will have a fine time if you are isolated. The military ties will follow, now. We had a military relationship with Soviet Union. We will have to wait and see the terms of new military ties. American arms supplies are not always on commercial terms as the terms of supplies of Soviet was also not strictly on commercial terms. Now, the scene is shifting. It must shift because over dependence on one country is not good for defence security of India. It's a good thing because what America can supply can be supplied by France, Germany and other countries. So US will have to be competitive. See, strategic ties not only depend on defence ties, but it's about the quality of technology that we get. Russia and China will give its arm and a leg to receive technology from the US. It's not like buying a bag of cement.



When you buy defence technology you are saving the lives of your soldiers. You are giving an edge to your military and you can't be sentimental or dogmatic. China and Russia do not have the technology that US has. The media ignores this fact that the frontiers of technology of the US exceed the technologies of world put together. The Chinese are on their knees, begging for US technology. Why should India go with the second best and Pakistan gets the best technology? Political parties in India may gain in opposing the deal, but the Indian soldier loses. When Pakistan was getting technology from China, was it reading its political manifestoes? The name of the game is that you do best for your soldiers. To upgrade your military power is not the small priority. It can't be judged on the basis of how will affect your election prospects. What will media say that "I have become a stooge of US" and all that is a secondary thing. The political leader has to serve its Army first. You should see India's growing relationship with Israel in that context. By having military ties with Israel or the US, you are not endorsing their policies. Are you endorsing China's policies by doing trade with China?


Isn't it true that America wants India to be under their security, military and nuclear matrix?
You go to them with your own package. I am afraid we are not a matured nation if we shrink just because America is coming to you. We should go to the US with our shoulders stretched. Look at their negotiators in the eye. You have the right to say where to get off.



You know India is not opting for cheap gas from Iran.
No, this is not a fact. It's an allegation. Iranians are shifting ground. They do not abide by their commercial terms. They raise prices to an absurd level. In Kudremukh, they have stalled the deal. They have been changing terms of the pipeline at least four times. There is a huge question mark on the security issue of the pipeline. I am sure you or any journalist in India will not put their personal Money in the pipeline. It is a lie to say we are not going for the pipeline under American pressure is not correct. It is correct that the American pressure is there against the pipeline. I am not an admirer of the US nor a critic because being a critic or admirer is a useless exercise. We should work in the interest of India without passing judgments on others.


How do you see the US-India-Pakistan dynamics?
The US is interacting with Pakistan with the same motive as they do with India. The US is in adverse situation with the Muslim world like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, Pakistan is not just another Islamic country. It has one of the most sophisticated armies and bigger than all the gulf countries put together. It has nuclear capability. Do not term Pakistan with the UAE, Syria or Jordan. The US has to be very careful when they pick up or let Pakistan down. The US investment is not giving them enough returns. They are playing hot and cold there by trying to take advantage of Pakistan's military power. We had a great problem in convincing the US that the Pakistan Army [Images] finds it convenient to divert terrorists to India and the ISI provides logistic support in the most blatant manner. There is no doubt that Pakistan has not given up their policy of creating troubles in India. They have a special programme to the taint the Indian Muslim groups to show off that India is also not free from indigenous militant Muslim groups. The US will try to restrict them as much as they can, but I don't think the US will be very effective.


How do you see the US-India cooperation in Afghanistan?
The problem is that wherever America goes, it Americanises the situation.
Afghanistan is not US's problem. It's a world problem, it's our problem. It's a problem for Iran and Pakistan where Afghan refugees are swarmed with. Rather, fear in the neighbouring countries is that the US might declare victory and walk out. Can you imagine Afghanistan minus NATO-US troops? I don't recommend Indian troops in Afghanistan because it has to be a carefully considered decision and I think situation is not ripe now. The one reason not to send troops to Afghanistan is because the US wants it!.


Don't you think better ties with neighbours will help India more in strengthening security?
That's a fact. But, believe me, when you have stronger relationship with the US you will have better ties with your neighbors. China takes notice when US President and Prime Minister of India talk. Hu Jintao didn't take call from New Delhi [Images] but he could not refuse the call from Washington. That's a reality. Having the US on your side adds edge to your cause. It goes without saying that you should not depend on the powerful friend and not lose your autonomy. Except Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar) everyone will sit and take notice of the US-India ties.


How will China view the surge in the Indo-US relationship?
In short term, they are making right voices, but they want to encircle India. They want to assert and want to see that India is not even second to them in Asia. However, they are revising their policies. They have made good use of the fact that you are not a nuclear power and not a member of United Nations Security Council. I hear a loose talk in India that who is the US to take us to UNSC? People also say the nuclear power is not good. People quote Rajiv Gandhi's disarmament speech -- that was a great thing to happen. What a great impact it made. But, the impact on whom? Not on the Chinese.


The fact is that when the Chinese will find that India is getting into the 5 plus 1 category they will revise their policy on India. The Chinese will give a greater regard now then they were giving to India so far, that is a fact. Now, what do critics say? They allege that we are annoying China and we are moving away from our non-alignment path into the US camp. What we will gain we will lose in our friendship with China. What friendship they are talking about? We are doing trade with China. What kind of trading is going on?



India is sending basic raw materials like iron ore and Chinese businessmen are sending goods, which kill our industries. The Chinese had a very fine time till now. They had access to the American space technology, supercomputers, missile and the nuclear technology when the doors were shut on India. I don't see how Indians were happy with the situation.


It amazes me. The jokers here played the card of Indian scientists versus America. Tell me, what about the Chinese scientists? Their brains are going overboard to extract technology from the US. Where is the pride? You are bringing in pride of Indian scientists to trump the collaboration of America with India. Nothing can be crazier. I find superceded scientists of the Atomic Energy Commission coming out and talking like patriots. Let them tell us what papers have they published?



Isn't it fact that the US is using India to counter-balance China in the region? Is not that affecting seriously India's independent relationship with China?
What can you do about it? You see the point is if the US and NATO powers in their calculation feel that India can be a balancing factor in Asia then, you take into account. I don't understand why should these frighten you?



India and China are two old nations; we know how to deal with each other.
Then, deal with it. I don't understand this sort of chest-beating. I am telling you seriously they would like (US and NATO) to do it. I am not contradicting it so, play the game. When you enter a football ground how can you say this guy is coming in my way and is hitting my leg? Of course, it is his job. Once you start coming up and you become more and more international player, every nation tries to use your emerging power to its best advantage. And person who thinks otherwise is a fool. The way you have to play on it is that you have to take full advantage.


Your theory is based on assumption that in India a brilliant leadership is there. Who will be able to balance their policies?
That is a second part. I am sketching out what is a wise policy. The implementation is the second step and there you have a point. You take this on board (US' offers to India). Don't reject it. Use it but you tell, not just tell, but convince China that, "We are not playing this game. We will not play this game because India is convinced that if you and I are locked in warm embrace the rest of the world will laugh all the way to the bank. We are no way going to match or pit our resources against yours. We hope that you will do the same. Although, friend, your record has been quite bad but, we hope and trust our civilizational traditions and Chinese wisdom that you will see to it that India and China must co-operate. We are the two most populous countries our needs are similar.



Those needs can become competing and rest of the world can play one against the other.


Instead we should have a level of co-operation and not play the big power game which US and other powers are playing. But, the fact remains that big powers want India to play these games but India is not complying."


If China thinks anytime that India is playing the American game, India and China should sit down and talk directly. India can convince China that we are following our own road.


Instead of these words, will it be better if India's top-level leadership attends SCO and not send merely a minister of Murli Deora's nature.
Yes, I agree. It's like this; strategy is all right in a long run, but when you are playing tactics for today you have to see the number of present-day factors. Today, the role of the Chinese has not reached at a position that India can go overboard. If we do so they will take it as a sign of weakness on our part. And we will be taken for granted. If Chinese are nasty to us, we should at least tell them that they have been nasty to us without causing permanent injury to relationship. We should let them know that we have been taken for granted. The way China is trying to to keep us out of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the way they supported some anti-waiver countries at Vienna [Images], the way they stand up for Pakistan and their statement on Arunachal Pradesh suggest something. At this moment to be milk and honey to them is not correct for India. We have to proceed practically. We can't go overboard. But, there is no denying that thrust of our relationship with China has to be positive and friendly.


When the agreement is signed, how will you describe it as the turning point?
It's a new chapter in the Indo-US relationship. It's a turning point. Within India also, a many things have happened. Our leaders were afraid in going a bit far with the US.
Every time they did there was such sniping from the press, Left parties and the crowd that is found around the India International Centre. It is for this reason that no leader, no chief minister or no mayor or anybody had guts to name any building , any institution, road or by-lane after an American leader. You will find Ho Chi Minh or Archbishop Makarios and even Olof Palme, but not Martin Luther King. Jr or Lincoln or Washington.



It is worth analyzing why is it so? Is it because we are fiercely independent? But, then we have so many English names, we have so many French and German influences, too.


Somebody had argued it may be out of cowardice that nobody is willing to bell the cat and be dumped as an American agent or a CIA guy! Finally, the 123 agreement puts a break to this thinking. This confining border on our political leader is finally broken. I think, the credit for it must go to Dr Manmohan Singh [Images]. Every possible allegation has been hurled at him, but I think he has come out of it cleanly.


Do you think the nuclear agreement has divided India?
That's true. It was reflected in Parliament voting, too. But, India is divided on every other issue, too. India is divided on Tata's Nano projectand even on Raj Thackeray. See the leader can't say that because the nation is divided so I can't take decisions. What is Parliament for? Parliament has to decide on issues on majority of one vote. Period. The US is the English-speaking nation by one vote. When the US Congress met to adopt its national language, German and English were voted upon and German language lost by one vote. So what's great about the issues that divide?


When you faced the opposition of the US government and the media after Pohkran -II, have you ever thought the ties will change so drastically?


No. It required orchestrated steps both the governments, which I find very surprising. Now, that it's happened people take for granted, but I am amazed that the 123 agreement is happening. I never thought that there would be a US president who will move this far to change the law, to break the rules, to withstand the attack of the non-proliferation lobby and force his diplomats and officers to come to terms with what Indian side wanted. I think, it is a very well-negotiated deal.


People say it is not transparent. Four times, Parliament has discussed it clause by clause. It is the most transparent, most written-about and most analyzed agreement in the history of India. America is signing this deal for the same reason. It is doing it in its self-interest.



What is it?
It sees that India can be a responsible player for the more liberal democratic order in the world. And, the disadvantage we have today vis-�-vis China has to be eliminated. And, that the American influence has to be prevailed without confrontation and friction. With the growing Chinese power, an emerging and stronger India is better for harmony and the balance of world.


And what are the advantages for India?
If people are willing to be on your side, then what is your problem? If your fundamentals are improving and people are giving you more weight then why should we worry about it? Its time India entered the field and joined the game instead of running outside the boundaries.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

'It's the most transparent deal in Indian history'
(source:rediff.com)


Naresh Chandra, former Indian Ambassador to the United States, is a pioneer in more ways than one. He successfully withstood the wrath of the the American nuclear non-proliferation lobby after the 1998 nuclear bomb tests by India. He was one of the key players in navigating the new Indo-US ties to a new high. The efforts, started by the A B Vajpayee government, will now culminate on October 4 when US Secretray of State Condoleezza Rice signs the Indo-US nuclear deal with Pranab Mukherjee.


Naresh Chandra was also a party to the then key Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks under the umbrella of Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). On the eve of the historic day, the ex-diplomat shares his views on the nuclear deal and its real impact.



What is the big picture you get after signing the nuclear deal? Will the Indian foreign policy change?
If anybody is arguing that India's foreign policy will be changing, then answer to this question is : so what? Some people argue against closer ties with bigger power or stronger power. But, to take it to the extreme that you can't have truck with the superpower is a self-defeating argument. Then, your neighbour will have a fine time if you are isolated. The military ties will follow, now. We had a military relationship with Soviet Union. We will have to wait and see the terms of new military ties. American arms supplies are not always on commercial terms as the terms of supplies of Soviet was also not strictly on commercial terms. Now, the scene is shifting. It must shift because over dependence on one country is not good for defence security of India. It's a good thing because what America can supply can be supplied by France, Germany and other countries. So US will have to be competitive. See, strategic ties not only depend on defence ties, but it's about the quality of technology that we get. Russia and China will give its arm and a leg to receive technology from the US. It's not like buying a bag of cement.



When you buy defence technology you are saving the lives of your soldiers. You are giving an edge to your military and you can't be sentimental or dogmatic. China and Russia do not have the technology that US has. The media ignores this fact that the frontiers of technology of the US exceed the technologies of world put together. The Chinese are on their knees, begging for US technology. Why should India go with the second best and Pakistan gets the best technology? Political parties in India may gain in opposing the deal, but the Indian soldier loses. When Pakistan was getting technology from China, was it reading its political manifestoes? The name of the game is that you do best for your soldiers. To upgrade your military power is not the small priority. It can't be judged on the basis of how will affect your election prospects. What will media say that "I have become a stooge of US" and all that is a secondary thing. The political leader has to serve its Army first. You should see India's growing relationship with Israel in that context. By having military ties with Israel or the US, you are not endorsing their policies. Are you endorsing China's policies by doing trade with China?


Isn't it true that America wants India to be under their security, military and nuclear matrix?
You go to them with your own package. I am afraid we are not a matured nation if we shrink just because America is coming to you. We should go to the US with our shoulders stretched. Look at their negotiators in the eye. You have the right to say where to get off.



You know India is not opting for cheap gas from Iran.
No, this is not a fact. It's an allegation. Iranians are shifting ground. They do not abide by their commercial terms. They raise prices to an absurd level. In Kudremukh, they have stalled the deal. They have been changing terms of the pipeline at least four times. There is a huge question mark on the security issue of the pipeline. I am sure you or any journalist in India will not put their personal Money in the pipeline. It is a lie to say we are not going for the pipeline under American pressure is not correct. It is correct that the American pressure is there against the pipeline. I am not an admirer of the US nor a critic because being a critic or admirer is a useless exercise. We should work in the interest of India without passing judgments on others.


How do you see the US-India-Pakistan dynamics?
The US is interacting with Pakistan with the same motive as they do with India. The US is in adverse situation with the Muslim world like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But, Pakistan is not just another Islamic country. It has one of the most sophisticated armies and bigger than all the gulf countries put together. It has nuclear capability. Do not term Pakistan with the UAE, Syria or Jordan. The US has to be very careful when they pick up or let Pakistan down. The US investment is not giving them enough returns. They are playing hot and cold there by trying to take advantage of Pakistan's military power. We had a great problem in convincing the US that the Pakistan Army [Images] finds it convenient to divert terrorists to India and the ISI provides logistic support in the most blatant manner. There is no doubt that Pakistan has not given up their policy of creating troubles in India. They have a special programme to the taint the Indian Muslim groups to show off that India is also not free from indigenous militant Muslim groups. The US will try to restrict them as much as they can, but I don't think the US will be very effective.


How do you see the US-India cooperation in Afghanistan?
The problem is that wherever America goes, it Americanises the situation.
Afghanistan is not US's problem. It's a world problem, it's our problem. It's a problem for Iran and Pakistan where Afghan refugees are swarmed with. Rather, fear in the neighbouring countries is that the US might declare victory and walk out. Can you imagine Afghanistan minus NATO-US troops? I don't recommend Indian troops in Afghanistan because it has to be a carefully considered decision and I think situation is not ripe now. The one reason not to send troops to Afghanistan is because the US wants it!.


Don't you think better ties with neighbours will help India more in strengthening security?
That's a fact. But, believe me, when you have stronger relationship with the US you will have better ties with your neighbors. China takes notice when US President and Prime Minister of India talk. Hu Jintao didn't take call from New Delhi [Images] but he could not refuse the call from Washington. That's a reality. Having the US on your side adds edge to your cause. It goes without saying that you should not depend on the powerful friend and not lose your autonomy. Except Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar) everyone will sit and take notice of the US-India ties.


How will China view the surge in the Indo-US relationship?
In short term, they are making right voices, but they want to encircle India. They want to assert and want to see that India is not even second to them in Asia. However, they are revising their policies. They have made good use of the fact that you are not a nuclear power and not a member of United Nations Security Council. I hear a loose talk in India that who is the US to take us to UNSC? People also say the nuclear power is not good. People quote Rajiv Gandhi's disarmament speech -- that was a great thing to happen. What a great impact it made. But, the impact on whom? Not on the Chinese.


The fact is that when the Chinese will find that India is getting into the 5 plus 1 category they will revise their policy on India. The Chinese will give a greater regard now then they were giving to India so far, that is a fact. Now, what do critics say? They allege that we are annoying China and we are moving away from our non-alignment path into the US camp. What we will gain we will lose in our friendship with China. What friendship they are talking about? We are doing trade with China. What kind of trading is going on?



India is sending basic raw materials like iron ore and Chinese businessmen are sending goods, which kill our industries. The Chinese had a very fine time till now. They had access to the American space technology, supercomputers, missile and the nuclear technology when the doors were shut on India. I don't see how Indians were happy with the situation.


It amazes me. The jokers here played the card of Indian scientists versus America. Tell me, what about the Chinese scientists? Their brains are going overboard to extract technology from the US. Where is the pride? You are bringing in pride of Indian scientists to trump the collaboration of America with India. Nothing can be crazier. I find superceded scientists of the Atomic Energy Commission coming out and talking like patriots. Let them tell us what papers have they published?



Isn't it fact that the US is using India to counter-balance China in the region? Is not that affecting seriously India's independent relationship with China?
What can you do about it? You see the point is if the US and NATO powers in their calculation feel that India can be a balancing factor in Asia then, you take into account. I don't understand why should these frighten you?



India and China are two old nations; we know how to deal with each other.
Then, deal with it. I don't understand this sort of chest-beating. I am telling you seriously they would like (US and NATO) to do it. I am not contradicting it so, play the game. When you enter a football ground how can you say this guy is coming in my way and is hitting my leg? Of course, it is his job. Once you start coming up and you become more and more international player, every nation tries to use your emerging power to its best advantage. And person who thinks otherwise is a fool. The way you have to play on it is that you have to take full advantage.


Your theory is based on assumption that in India a brilliant leadership is there. Who will be able to balance their policies?
That is a second part. I am sketching out what is a wise policy. The implementation is the second step and there you have a point. You take this on board (US' offers to India). Don't reject it. Use it but you tell, not just tell, but convince China that, "We are not playing this game. We will not play this game because India is convinced that if you and I are locked in warm embrace the rest of the world will laugh all the way to the bank. We are no way going to match or pit our resources against yours. We hope that you will do the same. Although, friend, your record has been quite bad but, we hope and trust our civilizational traditions and Chinese wisdom that you will see to it that India and China must co-operate. We are the two most populous countries our needs are similar.



Those needs can become competing and rest of the world can play one against the other.


Instead we should have a level of co-operation and not play the big power game which US and other powers are playing. But, the fact remains that big powers want India to play these games but India is not complying."


If China thinks anytime that India is playing the American game, India and China should sit down and talk directly. India can convince China that we are following our own road.


Instead of these words, will it be better if India's top-level leadership attends SCO and not send merely a minister of Murli Deora's nature.
Yes, I agree. It's like this; strategy is all right in a long run, but when you are playing tactics for today you have to see the number of present-day factors. Today, the role of the Chinese has not reached at a position that India can go overboard. If we do so they will take it as a sign of weakness on our part. And we will be taken for granted. If Chinese are nasty to us, we should at least tell them that they have been nasty to us without causing permanent injury to relationship. We should let them know that we have been taken for granted. The way China is trying to to keep us out of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the way they supported some anti-waiver countries at Vienna [Images], the way they stand up for Pakistan and their statement on Arunachal Pradesh suggest something. At this moment to be milk and honey to them is not correct for India. We have to proceed practically. We can't go overboard. But, there is no denying that thrust of our relationship with China has to be positive and friendly.


When the agreement is signed, how will you describe it as the turning point?
It's a new chapter in the Indo-US relationship. It's a turning point. Within India also, a many things have happened. Our leaders were afraid in going a bit far with the US.
Every time they did there was such sniping from the press, Left parties and the crowd that is found around the India International Centre. It is for this reason that no leader, no chief minister or no mayor or anybody had guts to name any building , any institution, road or by-lane after an American leader. You will find Ho Chi Minh or Archbishop Makarios and even Olof Palme, but not Martin Luther King. Jr or Lincoln or Washington.



It is worth analyzing why is it so? Is it because we are fiercely independent? But, then we have so many English names, we have so many French and German influences, too.


Somebody had argued it may be out of cowardice that nobody is willing to bell the cat and be dumped as an American agent or a CIA guy! Finally, the 123 agreement puts a break to this thinking. This confining border on our political leader is finally broken. I think, the credit for it must go to Dr Manmohan Singh [Images]. Every possible allegation has been hurled at him, but I think he has come out of it cleanly.


Do you think the nuclear agreement has divided India?
That's true. It was reflected in Parliament voting, too. But, India is divided on every other issue, too. India is divided on Tata's Nano projectand even on Raj Thackeray. See the leader can't say that because the nation is divided so I can't take decisions. What is Parliament for? Parliament has to decide on issues on majority of one vote. Period. The US is the English-speaking nation by one vote. When the US Congress met to adopt its national language, German and English were voted upon and German language lost by one vote. So what's great about the issues that divide?


When you faced the opposition of the US government and the media after Pohkran -II, have you ever thought the ties will change so drastically?


No. It required orchestrated steps by both the governments, which I find very surprising. Now, that it's happened people take for granted, but I am amazed that the 123 agreement is happening. I never thought that there would be a US president who will move this far to change the law, to break the rules, to withstand the attack of the non-proliferation lobby and force his diplomats and officers to come to terms with what Indian side wanted. I think, it is a very well-negotiated deal.


People say it is not transparent. Four times, Parliament has discussed it clause by clause. It is the most transparent, most written-about and most analyzed agreement in the history of India. America is signing this deal for the same reason. It is doing it in its self-interest.



What is it?
It sees that India can be a responsible player for the more liberal democratic order in the world. And, the disadvantage we have today vis-�-vis China has to be eliminated. And, that the American influence has to be prevailed without confrontation and friction. With the growing Chinese power, an emerging and stronger India is better for harmony and the balance of world.


And what are the advantages for India?
If people are willing to be on your side, then what is your problem? If your fundamentals are improving and people are giving you more weight then why should we worry about it? Its time India entered the field and joined the game instead of running outside the boundaries.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[vvachaspati]

There will be a definite question regarding the Nuclear Capabilities and Utilities in India.
Hence, the candidates must study about it thorougly.
Because the question need not be directly on Nuclear Civil Deal, but it could be indirect.

[Sreekar]

Bush signs Indo-US nuclear bill
(source:timesofIndia.com)

US President George W Bush on Wednesday signed into law the legislation to implement the historic Indo-US civil nuclear deal paving the way for the two countries to formally ink the 123 agreement on Friday.

In significant comments at the signing ceremony, Bush assured there will be no changes in fuel supply commitments as contained in the 123 Agreement. "India can count on reliable fuel supplies (from US) for its reactors," Bush said.

Bush inked the authorising legislation finally approved by the US Congress last week in a high profile ceremony at the White House's ornate East Room reversing 34 years of US policy to eventually allow American businesses to have a share of India's 100 billion dollar nuclear pie.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will formally sign the overall bilateral nuclear cooperation accord on Friday evening itself in a surprise announcement made by the State Department hours before Bush's signature on the implementing legislation.

"On Friday at 4 o'clock (0130 IST Saturday) the secretary will sign with the Indian foreign minister, Foreign Minister Mukherjee, the India Civil Nuclear Agreement," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

"This follows on the president's signature today of implementing legislation in the United States," he added.

In a major foreign policy success, Bush put his signature on " H R 7081, United States- India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act " in the presence of Vice-President Dick Cheney, Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Indian Ambassador to the US Ronen Sen, lawmakers, prominent members of the Indian American community and leading businessmen of the two countries.

Bush said the legislation makes no changes in the 123 Agreement and it does not affect fuel exchange and reprocessing.

The President thanked not only members of his administration, especially at the State Department and White House who worked to secure the deal, but also lawmakers and leaders of the Indian American community.

He especially appreciated Rice for her "hard work" in bringing the deal to fruition.

The Presidential action culminates a over three-year tumultous journey for the deal which faced opposition from lawmakers in both the two countries that also saw Left parties withdrawing support to the Manmohan Singh government. Bush and Singh approved the deal on July 18, 2005 during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington.

Calling the Indian prime minister as his "dear friend", Bush said India and the US are "natural partners" despite being physically separated half way through the globe.

Bush also spoke of advanced consent for reprocessing. Bush's assurances appears to have taken care of Indian concerns over issues relating to unhindered american fuel supplies and technology transfers for uranium enrichment.

The President said the 123 Agreement is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act.

Despite the deal coming under attack from its critics in the US, the Bush Administration has steadfastly maintained it is a very big boon to global non-proliferation.

Once Bush signs the authorizing legislation, he is required to certify that the agreement with India is consistent with U.S. obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

He must also certify that it is U.S. policy to cooperate with international efforts to further restrict transfers of technology related to uranium enrichment and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Three decades after US imposed a ban on civilian nuclear trade with India after latter's first nuclear test in 1974, American officials have said a new approach is needed to help the world's largest democracy meet its booming energy needs at a time of skyrocketing oil prices and global warming fears.

Rice during a visit to New Delhi last week called the accord "a recognition of India's emergence on the global stage".

"The president looks forward to signing this bill into law and continuing to strengthen the US-India Strategic Partnership," a White House official said hours before the signing ceremony

"This legislation will strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner," the official said.

Rice and others had to lobby hard to win approval for the deal from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which controls global atomic trade.

She also pushed hard for the agreement to be approved by both Houses of Congress.

The historic agreement could not be inked during Rice's day-long visit to India on October 4 as New Delhi insisted that it would do so only after seeing Bush's signing statement. India is expecting Bush to clear the American position on certain aspects like fuel supply assurances.

The bill was approved by the House of Representatives before the Senate gave its nod for it. It had bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

Nuke deal is signed, sealed, and delivered
(source:timesofIndia.com)

Generations to come may slice and dice the US-India nuclear cooperation deal, but for now it has been firmly stated by New Delhi and broadly accepted in Washington that India will be bound only by the bilateral 123 Agreement with regards to the terms of the deal, other sentiments of the US Congress notwithstanding.

Having assured itself that US President George Bush asserted his executive stamp over legislative opinion in his statement that accompanied the signing of the nuclear bill into law, New Delhi sent its entire negotiating team led by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee on a 10,000-mile, 12-hour visit to Washington for the 123 Agreement signing ceremony -- a modest affair in the State Department’s glittering Benjamin Franklin room. The team arrived in the afternoon, signed the agreement in the evening, and left for Delhi in the night.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose visit to New Delhi last week for the same purpose was rendered fruitless because of India’s anxiety over Bush’s signing statement, politely and pointedly thanked Mukherjee ''who flew all the way here from New Delhi to do this signing,'' before seeing them off without even a meal (the team dined at the their hotel). But for Mukherjee, a diplomatic maestro with nearly three-decades in the business, the objective of asserting India’s stand one last time in Washington was achieved.

''This is an agreement about civil nuclear cooperation and reflects a careful balance of rights and obligations. The agreement has been passed by the U.S. Congress without any amendment. This provision is now legally binding on both sides, once the agreement enters into force,'' he said in his remarks at the diplomatic ceremony before affixing his signature on the documents.

The assertion corrected any impression that the US Congress’ resolutions and sentiments amounted to an amendment and was legally binding on India, a position he elaborated later at a press conference. ''We are bound by the agreed text of the 123 Agreement, which is negotiated on the basis of the joint statements of President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July 2005 and March 2006,'' he said when asked if the nuclear deal was open to interpretation and if foreign relations could be conducted on the basis of trust. ''It’s not a merely a question of interpretation. It’s a question of agreed text.''

But in a tacit acknowledgment that trust would indeed be a basis for implementing the agreement, agreed text notwithstanding, Mukherjee’s written statement said ''We intend to implement this Agreement in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law and I am confident that the US will also do the same.''

US officials once again explained that provisions of Congressional law would kick in only in the event of an Indian nuclear test, that too after consideration of mitigating circumstances of the test. One official who was involved in the negotiating process told ToI, ''The essence of this agreement corrects the over-reaction of the Clinton administration to India's test in 1998. India is a different country in 2008 and will be different still in 2018. Do you think the US can react the same way to an Indian test in 2018?''

Secretary Rice did not have to resort to any such verbal calisthenics or elaborate projection, befitting a country that is more confident of its objectives and more secure in its vision of future US-India ties.

''Many thought this day would never come. But doubts have been silenced now,'' she said at the signing ceremony, adding that ''with the conclusion of this civil nuclear agreement, our partnership will be limited only by our will and our imagination.''

Indeed, the broad vision she laid out sounded straight out of the Left manifesto: let us use our partnership to drive a new social justice agenda for the 21st century by promoting good and uncorrupt governance, by expanding free and fair global trade, by advancing health and education, and supporting the millions and millions of people who are striving to lift themselves out of poverty.

But the underlying strategic objective was never too far. ''Let no one assume, though, that our work is now finished,'' she said. ''Indeed, what is most valuable about this agreement is how it unlocks a new and far broader world of potential for our strategic partnership in the 21st century, not just on nuclear cooperation but on every area of national endeavor.''

Around the time she was saying this, elsewhere in Washington’s corridors of powers, U.S strategists were discussing – and even demanding -- a greater role for India in containing the growing conflagration on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In fact, asked at his press conference about New Delhi’s stand on Pakistan seeking a similar nuclear deal, Mukherjee said India would have no problem with it, perhaps confident that a country which was descending into chaos and bankruptcy and which India was being asked to help save should have other priorities.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[Sreekar]

Bush issues first phase of certifications on N-deal
(source:TimesofIndia.com)

In a step closer to the operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal, US President George W Bush has formally certified to the Congress that the 123 agreement is consistent with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Bush also made a commitment that his administration will work with NSG members to restrict enrichment/reprocessing technologies.

There are two phases of certification and the first phase contains the two commitments to be done by the President before exchange of the diplomatic note and entry into force of the Indo-US nuclear agreement.

In a Presidential determination of October 20, Bush has sent a memorandum to his Secretary of State on the certifications pursuant to the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non Proliferation Enhancement Act.

"Pursuant to section 102(c) and section 204(a) of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, I hereby certify the entry into force and implementation of the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy pursuant to its terms is consistent with the obligation of the United States under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce India to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," Bush has said.

"It is the policy of the US to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, individually and collectively, to agree to further restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel," he added.

"You are authorised and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register," the Presidential Memorandum said.

The president notified his certifications in separate letters to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"I am pleased to transmit to the Congress the certifications required under section 102(c) and section 204(a) of the "United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act," (Public Law 110-369), and a Memorandum of Justification regarding those certifications," Bush said.

Thanks much,
Sreekar
BanChildLabour

[NAGARJUNA.C]

what you think of obama's win in USA presidential election and its impact on Nuclear deal of India with US?