[Sreekar]

Hi Folks,
Here's an interesting interview with Dr.Kissinger, ex-US secretary of state. See what he thinks if India's N-deal fails with U.S. It's really great to see a well balanced interview in recent years.

Part-1
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/51321/10_2007/
devils_kissinger_1/devils-advocate-kissinger-on-what-if-ndeal-fails.html

Part-2
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/51321/10_2007/
devils_kissinger_2/devils-advocate-kissinger-on-what-if-ndeal-fails.html

Part-3
http://www.ibnlive.com/videos/51321/10_2007/
devils_kissinger_3/devils-advocate-kissinger-on-what-if-ndeal-fails.html

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[Sreekar]

It’s now or never to get the deal, says Mulford
(source:The Hindu : Front Page News : Sunday, February 10, 2008)

NSG waiver “an extremely sensitive process”
India will retain its right to conduct nuclear test

Pressing for conclusion of the India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement during the Bush administration, Washington has suggested that it is almost “now or never” for New Delhi to get such a deal as non-proliferation groups may force additional conditionalities.

U.S. Ambassador David Mulford said the deal was good for India and would make the country the centre of a civil nuclear industry in the world.

“If this is not processed in the present Congress, it is unlikely that this deal will be offered again to India. It certainly would not be revived and offered by any administration, Democratic or Republican, before the year 2010, which is after the life of this administration,” he said in an interview in Karan Thapar’s Devil’s Advocate programme for CNN-IBN.
If the deal were to be revived, it would have to go through the (U.S. Congress) Committee process “and I think the non-proliferation groups would insist on changes in many of the terms or additional conditions.”
Noting that the “atmosphere is changing,” Mr. Mulford said: “I believe — and I know both Republicans and Democrats believe in the United States — this is the time to finish this deal.”

Asked if he was saying it was “now or maybe never” for the civil nuclear deal, Mr. Mulford said, “That’s pretty close to it.”

On the political opposition to the deal in this country, Mr. Mulford said the Americans were “puzzled” as this agreement was not immediately embraced and activated by India.

The Ambassador maintained that India would retain its right to conduct a nuclear test. “It can make that decision [to conduct test] at any time. It’s a sovereign state, it’s very clear that India is free to do as it wishes with regard to future testing,” he said.

“It’s also clear that if it does test then certain things may or may not happen that are prescribed in the agreement. It is all visible there, transparently, for anyone to see.”

Asked about the prospects of India getting a waiver from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, Mr. Mulford expressed confidence but acknowledged that it would not be easy. “We’re all hoping for that [a clean and unconditional clearance] but it has to be recognised that this is an extremely sensitive process,” he said.

“India has been granted a special exemption by the United States in the global system and we’re asking a variety of countries who were not given that particular opportunity to accept a special exemption.”
Noting that there was “a mix of countries” involved, the envoy said some of them took the “view that India is being rewarded inappropriately when it never signed the non-proliferation treaty, [whilst] other countries have very strong views on proliferation within their political structures.”

So, “that particular process is not going to be easy. I think it’s achievable but I think it will take some time and will take some political energy.”

Mr. Mulford said: “Our opinion is, very strongly, that we hope the group [NSG] will go for a relatively simple consensus and a clean solution to the problem and will not attempt to move beyond effectively the provisions that have been so carefully negotiated in the 123 Agreement.”

Safeguards agreement


When a reference was made to the difficulties in finalisation of the India-IAEA safeguards agreement, the Ambassador said: “I see no reason why the safeguards agreement can’t be achieved. I would be very surprised if that were’nt achievable.”

India and the International Atomic Energy Agency have held four rounds of talks on the agreement but failed to firm it up because of differences over various aspects.

After the IAEA agreement, India will have to seek a waiver from the NSG before a fresh vote in the U.S. Congress.

On the fears of the CPI and the CPI(M) that the U.S. intention behind the deal was to convert India into a subordinate ally in South Asia, Mr. Mulford said: “That’s completely untrue. [Instead], the United States wants to assist India in achieving its global vision of emerging as a major economic power in the world.”

The Ambassador said he would be willing to meet CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat to try to remove his concerns. Mr. Mulford also denied that the U.S. was pressuring India not to go ahead with the proposed gas pipeline with Iran. “I don’t think that’s true at all. What we’ve done is to indicate to members of the government that we have legislation on our books, which is well known, which is directed towards discouraging development of natural resources in Iran.”
This legislation “has not been used but it is there and it could come into play. We feel it’s only appropriate to remind people that it’s there.”

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[aspirant2007]

If this deal fails, India bound to face considerable pressure at international level to sign nuclear treaties (CTBT, FMCT) as a non nuclear state. The pressure will be enormous if Pakistan and China agree to sign above treaties. Though India can not be compelled to do so but international sanctions will be stricter in that case.
Presently the U.S. as a superpower can maneuver the deal in IAEA and NSG very easily, however the will and ability of the U.S. likely to decrease with time. Chinese clout bound to increase with time and any further deterioration of its relation with India (boundary issue) will be enough to make the deal dead in future. It is highly likely that a Democrat President will be in seat in 2010 and India’s past experiences with Democrats are not so nice, the Clinton administration was championed the CTBT and also joined China in asking India to roll back its nuclear program after 1998 tests.
So it is not wrong if Mr. Mulford says, “It is now or never”.

[Sreekar]

We'll work with India to make way for nuke deal: US
(source:The Times of India: Breaking news, views, reviews, cricket from across India.)

Seeking early conclusion of the nuclear agreement with India, the United States has said that the Washington will continue to work with New Delhi to pave the way for civilian nuclear initiative happen.

"What I can say about that initiative, which is the civil nuclear arrangement between US and India, is that it's something that we would like very much for our country to be able to enter into agreement with India because we believe that nuclear power is a good thing for the environment and it's a good thing for powering both electricity for homes and for businesses," US Press Secretary Dana Perino said.

"A country like India needs to think about how it's going to diversify its resources, not only for how it makes sure that the lights turn on when the kids are at home trying to do their homework, also because they are facing environmental problems," she said.

"This agreement is one that we have done very carefully, through the State Department, and trying to work with India. We would hope that they would see the benefits in it, and we continue to work with them to try to make it happen," Perino said.

The Spokesperson was asked if the President George W Bush had been in recent touch with the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the matter.

"I don't think they've been in touch recently. But, obviously, at the State Department they're in touch with them (India) quite regularly," Perino added.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[akatakata]

I dont understand why the US is pressing so much for the nuclear deal.I have read the agreement and it seems that every point is in favour of India. And the US is agreeing to every new condition put forth by the Governament of India. The US has never been kind to us in the past. But why now?What will US get out of this eventually?

[aspirant2007]

There can be many reasons for it, but most commonly accepted reason is the China factor. The U.S. and Indian strategic interests have convergence on China as the security challenge, especially in long run.

The Hindu editorial recently reported that China is rediscovering silk route by constructing new railway link with Central Asian countries. It will further enhance Chinese presence in the region. The U.S. is already facing the increasing clout of Shanghai Cooperation Organization under Chinese leadership in the region. Majority of the oil resources of the region are redirected to feed booming Chinese economy.
China is almost encircling India in Indian Ocean where it is developing port/ reconnaissance posts. At Coco Island of Myanmar it already has one post to monitor Indian missile tests from Chandipur at sea. It is developing Gawadar port in Baluchistan. It is expected that Chinese base at Maldivian island Marao will start working by 2010. ChinaArabian Gulf through Karakoram pass (through Pakistan and Gawadar port). will get access directly to
China recently held international conference with African countries in which it pledged heavy loan and construction of infrastructure in these countries. In return it will get better accesses to rich natural resources of Africa. One can give numerous example to highlight Chinese global ambitions. And one need not to be a security expert to find out its adverse implication on India and world.
As a sole superpower the U.S. rightly consider China as the rightful future challenger to its present status. On the other hand Russia is resurging due to its booming oil/gas resources which ensuring its more than 7 % economic growth rate. Therefore the U.S. sees probability of return of cold war era with Russian federation.
On the other hand Western allies of the U.S. are increasingly loosing their economic and political influence at world level. The EU has adopted more independent stand on majority of the world issues like global warming, Iraq, WTO; where it did not supported the U.S. stand.
All these shows that the U.S. desperately needs allies to maintain status quo of single superpower world order. And there is no suitable country for it then India. As in present circumstances both see their national interest on a converging line. Democratic and other values also give them moral foundation to become long term partners. So it is not surprisingly that the U.S. is on the course of becoming the largest arm supplier to India. Presently you name any field (defense, trade, mangoes, space, education etc) cooperation between two countries is increasing day by day.
Then there are openly stated reasons for the U.S. to be so enthusiastic for the deal, like pollution free nuclear energy, access to its nuclear reactor manufacturing company to India market, which presently monopolized by Russia and France. The deal will definitely facilitate bigger defense deal in future, like 126 multi roller aircraft to be procured by India in near future.
One can give numerous reasons for the U.S.India’s lukewarm response is more interesting to analyze. This U.S. enthusiasm for the deal naturally creates doubts, there is still lack of consensus on the pros and cons of the deal.
enthusiasm, but in my opinion


Further debate/discussion on above points is most welcome!

Thanks.

[Sreekar]

Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too
(source:www.TimesofIndia.com)

Exposing the Manmohan Singh government’s claim that the Hyde Act has no bearing on India, the US said it would support an exemption in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) only if it is “consistent” with the obligations spelt out for India in the Hyde Act.

“We will support nothing with India in the NSG that is in contradiction to the Hyde Act. It will have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the House of Foreign Affairs Panel.

The Hyde Act contains prescriptive clauses that include cessation of all civilian nuclear co-operation in case India tests a nuclear weapon and restricts the reprocessing of spent fuel.

The Hyde Act also features a provision on a multi-layered system of monitoring of reactors. These are all core issues related to co-operation in civilian nuclear energy which, according to Ms Rice, will now be included in an NSG waiver. This clearly goes against India’s position that it will only accept an “unconditional” waiver from the NSG.

This makes it impossible for the government to continue its line of argument that the Hyde Act has no impact on India’s nuclear sovereignty. The government has argued in the face of criticism from the BJP and the Left that the Hyde Act is not binding on India and only the 123 Agreement matters. The BJP and the Left have been arguing that the 123 Agreement cannot be taken in isolation and has to be read with the Hyde Act.

But the Bush administration, which is also on its way out, has now clearly spelt out how the Hyde Act directly impacts India. Ms Rice said that if the Bush administration did not adhere to the provisions in the Hyde Act, US legislators would refuse to pass the 123 Agreement when and if it comes to the US Congress for approval. “We'll have to be consistent with the Hyde Act, or I don’t believe we can count on the Congress to make the next step,” Ms Rice said.


Responding to a question from the chairman of the panel, Howard Berman about the nature of the NSG exemptions.

Referring to the provisions in the Act that terminates US co-operation in case of a test by India and restrictions on transfer of reprocessing technologies, Mr Berman said, “I’m concerned about the NSG. As I understand it, the US representative to that body has circulated a clean exemption for India that doesn’t reflect any of the restrictions contained in the Hyde Act.”

He added: “If that exemption were adopted by the NSG, we would essentially be creating two standards for nuclear trade for India, one for the US and one for the rest of the world.” And in response to this, Ms Rice said the NSG exemption would follow the Hyde Act.

The hardening of the US position also comes in the wake of the UPA government’s inability to take the concluding steps in operationalising the civilian nuclear agreement. The delay in concluding negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the continuing political uncertainty have clearly made the remaining steps more difficult for India to take.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[Sreekar]

Close The Deal
(source: TimesIndia -Editorial)

US ambassador David Mulford, interacting with the Times of India editorial team on February 5, observed that the nuclear deal won't be offered to India again in its present form if it's not passed by the US Congress in its current term. As America gets preoccupied by its presidential election, the nuclear deal may soon be pushed off the legislative agenda. Nicholas Burns, Washington's chief pointsperson for the deal, also indicated on Tuesday that time was running out.

The Russians have, meanwhile, made it clear that the recently signed agreement with New Delhi, to build four new nuclear reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, can't be implemented unless endorsed by the IAEA and NSG. Allowing the nuclear deal to fall through at this stage would mean closing off nuclear trade not only with the US but also with Russia, France, China and whoever else wants to sell us nuclear technology. With fossil fuels seen as contributing to global warming the nuclear power industry will be big. Being left out of it entirely will damage Indian interests significantly. It will also send out a dismal signal that India's not interested in the globalisation process and would rather remain in its den than engage with the world.

The logic for the deal is stark and compelling. Prakash Karat might play to his gallery by saying that it will have to await a fresh mandate for Congress from the people. But, surely, even he understands that India can't remain isolated forever in the world of Nuclear energy. If Karat is threatening to withdraw Left support to the UPA government, the government should take him up on it. As Lok Sabha elections approach the Left will distance itself from the Congress, deal or no deal. Since the Left has held the whip hand over the UPA government and rendered it virtually impotent through much of its term, it would be better if Congress took the initiative this time and signed the nuclear deal, daring the Left to bring it down on that score. It doesn't really matter if elections are held in late 2008 or early 2009. The electorate likes action, not inaction. Having a reputation for boldness, for a change, can't do Congress much harm.

As for the BJP, if it wants to come back in the next elections it must strive to be seen as a party of governance. A nihilistic opposition to anything the government of the day proposes, despite the fact that the NDA too had similar positions on India-US relations when it was in power, shouldn't be part of its weaponry. It should stand apart from the Left and support the deal.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[Lalita]

Thanks for this valuable information

regards

Lalita

[aspirant2007]

The Hyde Act and India.

The Hyde Act was passed by the U.S. Congress and it does have provisions which constrain Indian Strategic nuclear weapon program. It has provisions which lead to termination of nuclear cooperation with India if India conducts the nuclear test. It also has provisions which prohibit Indo-Iran cooperation.

. 123 Agreement is the one which put Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in operation (including exemption in IAEA and NSG). The Hyde Act was passed by the Congress. But it is interesting to note that 123 Agreement will also be passed by the same Congress. So if this agreement violates any provision of the Hyde Act, the Congress will either change the agreement or will not pass it. If it try to change the agreement, it will lead to renegotiation of the deal. And if it doesn’t pass it, well, that will be the end of story.

But by recent debate, trend and opinions; it is highly likely that the Congress will pass the 123 Agreement without any change. It is unlikely that it will search any contradiction between 123 Agreement and Hyde Act. Therefore it will be safe for the U.S. Executive to say that the agreement complies with the Hyde Act, on the other hand Indian Executive can safely say that it is bound by the 123 Agreement not with the Hyde Act.

So how much the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement should worry India? I think it is just to satisfy nuclear disarmament lobbies who are against the deal. But the statement provided political point to India opposition parties to do its vote bank politics against the deal.