• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India and US - III
<b>'Bush is one of the strongest friends of India'</b>
March 03, 2006 01:14 IST

Dr Walter Andersen recently retired as chief of the US State Department's South Asia Division in the Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia. An old India hand, he held other key positions within the State Department, including special assistant to the ambassador at the US Embassy in New Delhi.

In an exclusive chat with rediff readers, Dr Andersen examined the pros and cons of President Bush's visit to India, and concludes that "he (President Bush) has probably been the strongest advocate in his own government in a strong India, at a time when many others were skeptical about India."

For those of you missed this chat, here's the transcript:

bushbush asked, Do you think the Congress will ratify this deal?
Walter Andersen answers, There will be considerable debate as there always is on issues like this, but I am confident that Congress will ratify this deal because it makes good sense.

sujit asked, sir, do you think this deal that was signed in Delhi will compromise Indian strategic interests?
Walter Andersen answers, No, I do not think it will compromise India's strategic interests. India's strategic interest, in my view, is to build a strong economy and this prospective deal works in that direction.

ProudIndian asked, Dr Andersen, how will Bush justify not giving a similar deal to pakistan?
Walter Andersen answers, That is fairly simple to answer. First, the US will handle relations with the two countries separately. The A,Q,Khan issue makes it difficult for the US to propose a similar deal to Pakistan. In addition, the strategic interests of the US are different with India and with Pakistan.
Friday, March 03, 2006

EDITORIAL: US-India nuclear deal comes through

The nuclear deal between India and the United States has finally happened. In some ways dramatically so and in keeping with the brouhaha it had created not just in the United States — among non-proliferationists — but also in India among Left-leaning parties and the disarmament, anti-nuclear energy lobby. There was also much speculation everywhere over whether the deal would be signed during President George W Bush’s visit to India. Those opposed to it thought it would not; even those in favour of it, in India, were not prepared to stick their necks out and say it would be signed during the current visit. Instead, they said that while the deal might not be signed during the visit, it would stay on the table. In the event, Mr Bush surprised everyone when he clinched it right on the tarmac after landing in New Delhi.

Later, at a joint press conference, Mr Bush confirmed it by saying that “We have concluded an historic agreement today on nuclear power.” Analysts had faced a tough task trying to figure out whether the deal would go through. The opposition in the US Congress had not entirely abated; India’s first list of nuclear facilities given to the US was pooh-poohed by the latter as sketchy and inadequate; India, reports suggested, was facing technical problems in identifying what facilities to declare as civilian nuclear facilities and how to disentangle the military and civilian sides of the programme; political constituencies in India, even the Congress’ allies, were opposed to the deal. Lately, India’s scientific enclave had jumped into the fray and cast doubts over the advantage to India of the deal (this included Anil Kakodkar, current chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission, who said that declaring fast breeder reactors would harm India’s weapons programme); and US State Department officials gave conflicting statements on the deal’s status and how much work needed to be done on India’s side before it could be finalised.

Even so, analysts would have done better if they had factored in four developments, two each on both sides. On India’s side, the decision by New Delhi to join the US-European camp on the issue of Iran was very significant given India’s traditionally good relations with Iran; equally, if not more important, was the removal of Mani Shankar Aiyar as petroleum minister. Mr Aiyar by all accounts was one of the most efficient cabinet members. Under his charge, India had drawn out a medium- to long-term map of a regional energy grid. He was also one of the most vocal proponents of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. His removal, coupled with policy change on Iran, should have indicated the extent of India’s determination (and desperation) to clinch the nuclear deal.

On the side of the US, President Bush, after coming across as a more sedate second-term president, seems to be shaking himself up. His recent threat of a showdown with the US Congress on the issue of Dubai Ports World’s running of six US ports is a case in point. Mr Bush is known as a president who goes out there and gets things done. It appears that, despairing of the technical bickering over the issue, he decided to just do something high profile and be done with it. The second important development on the US side was the interest shown by US big business in the deal. Big business had started lobbying for the deal, a sure-fire way of pushing things through on the Hill.

An additional factor could be the eagerness with which France cut its own nuclear deal with India during French President Jacques Chirac’s visit there last month.

What next? The deal has still to be ratified by the US Senate and the question that now presents itself to analysts is whether this will happen. In some ways, Mr Bush in speeding up the process of signing the deal with India has put the cart before the horse. In doing so, however, he has thrown the ball in India’s court. India will now have to decide what it must do to satisfy US lawmakers. And it will have to do so in the teeth of opposition from allies in the ruling coalition, left-liberal lobbies in India and even the scientific enclave. The Bush administration, for its part, will wait for what India does to make it easier for it (administration) to push the Senate to ratify the deal.

Leaving this aside for a moment, it is obvious that India has just turned a major corner in the conduct of its foreign policy. Never before has the break with its Nehruvian-socialist and non-allied past been so complete. India has accepted, as it must, that in seeking to embrace the US in a strategic partnership it has to pay the price of being less independent in its relations with other states. This is the upshot of a decade-long restructuring of India’s foreign and security policies. It is anachronistic for some Indian analysts to argue that India still has time to go back to an “independent” foreign policy. As one analyst wrote last September, “... for New Delhi to go back and reassert itself... would mean unravelling the entire structure of India’s foreign and security policies as it has evolved since 1998.”

There has been some unease in Pakistan over the deal with Islamabad arguing that it must also get the same treatment as India. This is a misplaced notion for two reasons: this deal is sui generis and India has got it on the basis of factors that Pakistan lacks; secondly, Pakistan might just have got it if it had not presented itself as a state of proliferation concern to the world. This is not the time for Pakistan to try and push for it. Given the bilateral nature of the deal, Pakistan could have a similar arrangement with China. Apart from the technological upside of the deal for India, there is more political worth in it than anything else. *
Bush Salutes India As Strategic US Partner<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
by Staff Writers
New Delhi, India (AFP) Mar 02, 2006
US President George W. Bush paid glowing tribute on Thursday to burgeoning ties between Washington and New Delhi, declaring India to be a strategic partner of the United States.

Speaking after talks with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Bush said the two leaders had discussed many issues including terrorism.

"India and America have built a strategic partnership based on common values," he told reporters.

"We are working as partners to make the world safer," Bush said, stressing bilateral cooperation in efforts to defeat terrorism.

"We are cooperating on the military front," he said, praising India's help in encouraging the development of democracy, notably in Afghanistan.

"We worked as partners responding to the tsunami," he said, referring to the tragedy that hit south Asia on December 26, 2004 killing tens of thousands.

He read a joint statement on behalf of both India and the United States criticising Myanmar's military junta and Nepal's warring Maoists and monarchy.

"Our discussions were more than just friendly handshakes," he said.

"We discussed important international relations. We are partners in peace. India and America have built a strategic partnership based on common values."

After announcing that a historic civilian nuclear deal had been struck between India and the United States, he said: "Our relationship is changing dramatically."

During the Cold War, New Delhi's diplomatic priorities lay with Moscow, rather than Washington, but the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by reform and economic liberalisation, marked the start in the early 1990's of a shift towards to the United States.

Singh said the nuclear deal "makes me confident there is no limit to Indo-US partnership".

Bush arrived on his maiden visit to India on Wednesday night after a brief stopover in Afghanistan and was due to leave for Pakistan late Friday.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

On the orginal web page see the caption to the image of Harrier taking off aircraft carrier. The racism come out to the surface unashamed with:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>After shaking down the Brits, India is turning its attention to the US for all the latest in military technology.</span><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The mother selling Brits till now sold their weapon by shaking down 3rd world countries to their last penny, to fight adversaries created by Brits in the first place. And they have the gall to accuse India of shaking down the king of Thives! I can not stop laughing and cursing the the Brits. White Brits are the wretched lot now days.

Well the shaking down for real will start in few years when Brits start appying for job permit with Indian embassy, and HM government borrow money by securing their historical threasur/art. Call it payback time or day of judgement?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Well the shaking down for real will start in few years when Brits start appying for job permit with Indian embassy, and HM government borrow money by securing their historical threasur/art. Call it payback time or day of judgement? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is already happening. My cousins who are born and brought up in UK, now working for Indian company in Delhi and sometimes travel to Pakistan. There are no good paying jobs left in UK. They are trying to get Indian passport. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Mudy: Listen to this one:
India Adds Spice to Globalization
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Commentator Sandip Roy just returned from a visit to his family in India. Like President Bush, he had a chance to observe first hand the power of one the world's fastest growing consumer markets. It wasn't what he was expecting.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mudy: Listen to this one:
India Adds Spice to Globalization<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very much true. Gone those days, carrying 2 full extra large suitcase to India. Now I bring back 2 extra large suitcases with extra box carry-on from India. One can find better color and much cheaper in India.
Thank you, Mr Bush


March 4, 2006

Have you noticed how the world doesn’t like America? Few countries have anything good to say. The irony is that those for whom it has done the most tend to be least grateful. And this applies regardless of whether the recipient state is Asian, Latin American or European.

In the 1950s, when the Marshall Plan was reviving Europe’s crushed fortunes, it was commonplace in England to joke about Yankee unpopularity. The one that became best known went like this: “We hate them for three reasons, because they are over-paid, over-sexed and over-here.” This snide if successful strand of humour has roots that stretch far back into Europe’s relations with the ‘New World’. Oscar Wilde was a past master: “It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful still to have missed it”, or “America had often been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed up.”

Even the French had their little digs. Clemenceau, who was Prime Minister during World War I, is best known for the following witticism: “America is the only country to have progressed from barbarism to decadence without experiencing the intervening stage of civilisation.” Freud: “America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen but, I’m afraid, it’s not going to succeed.”

What lies behind such humour is rank jealousy. Success, no doubt, breeds envy but when your own impoverishment or incapacity adds the curse of dependence envy turns rapidly into dislike. The more the world needs America the more it hates itself for it. And since one cannot swear at oneself, America becomes the next best victim.

Of course, Yankee crassness, at times their innocence and often their idiocy have added to this. Americans are hardly their own best ambassadors. I recall a US Senator at the Cambridge Union who single handedly helped his side lose the motion “This House reaffirms its faith in America.” It happened when, carried away by his eloquence, he warmed to the subject and promised to lift the poor cities of the world “up, up, up — all the way till they look like Kansas City.” That shattered all prospects of a vote in favour.

And yet if America feels let down, stung by ingratitude, even lacerated, I can understand its feelings. Because those who need America the most are often the ones to kick hardest. This week India came very close to joining the list of the ungrateful.

Consider the facts. After nearly forty years of undisputed existence, the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, one of the world’s most sacred holy cows, has been dismantled to admit one single country. Of itself this is epoch-making. It’s revolutionary. But when you add the fact that this will give India, a country that was sometimes called a nuclear rogue state, the capacity to enlarge its civilian nuclear industry, which otherwise simply couldn’t have happened, the magnitude becomes enormous.

But are we grateful? Not if you look at the Left or the Samajwadi Party. Nor if you judge by the so-called popular protest on the streets. Not even if you go by the polls published by newspapers like this one. Instead, we’re more concerned about Bush’s Iraq policy or his threats to Iran, by his duplicity in the war on terrorism or even his simplistic, moralistic, little-Christian attitudes. We prefer to see reasons to dislike him. We ignore all cause for gratitude.

My point is simple. If Bush is so terrible why did we seek him out for help? If his Iraq policy is so unforgivable and if he is, as Arundhati Roy insists, a killer, why did we ask for his assistance? The choice to not do so was always there. But we consciously acted otherwise. Now, having got what we wanted, and possibly in far greater measure than expected, does it become us to carp and criticise?

The truth is we have in George W. Bush a president more pro-Indian than any before him. In fact the same nuclear deal would not have been possible under Clinton or Kerry or Gore. Bush alone made it happen. And he did so despite our Parliament’s well-known stand on Iraq and the ill-disguised contempt our elite have for him. If he could rise above all that then, surely, in return we could have expressed our gratitude more clearly and with good cheer. The protests should have been postponed or muted. They were hardly a suitable way of saying thank you.
ANALYSIS - India-U.S. ties surge but some mistrust lingers

By Y.P. Rajesh Mon Mar 6, 8:42 AM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A successful visit to India by U.S.
President George W. Bush has dramatically bolstered ties between the two countries but decades of mistrust will not be erased overnight.

Bush, by sealing a landmark atomic deal that aims to end India's global nuclear isolation, has recognised New Delhi's ambitions to emerge as a regional economic and strategic power and is expected to help in those goals being reached.

But long years of mutual suspicion, particularly in India over Washington's friendship with Pakistan, its unreliability in the past as a source of technical equipment supplies and a large anti-American constituency, would ensure caution despite the newfound bonhomie, analysts said.

"What has happened is the redrawing of the global power architecture where Bush has decided that we need a better and stronger alliance with India," said Chidanand Rajghatta, the Washington-based foreign editor of the Times of India daily.

"India's immediate concern was to get out of being in the nuclear doghouse for 30 years. But it will play along with the American strategy even though it may not say so," he told Reuters.

The nuclear deal reverses in one stroke three decades of American prohibition on sales of atomic equipment and fuel to India, which conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), calling it discriminatory.

The deal needs to be approved by a sceptical U.S. Congress first and accepted by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an informal club of nations that controls global nuclear trade, before India can get fuel and equipment for its stuttering atomic energy programme.


When that happens, it would officially anoint India, a nuclear pariah, as the world's sixth nuclear power after the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China.

It would also help establish India and the United States, who were on opposite sides of the Cold War, as key allies from a little over three decades ago when Washington sent the Seventh Fleet to the Bay of Bengal to threaten India which was involved in the freedom struggle in what was then East Pakistan.

"The United States and India, separated by half the globe, are closer than ever before, and the partnership between our nations has the power to transform the world," Bush told Indian business leaders hours before he concluded his visit last week.

While the nuclear deal is a pillar of that growing partnership between the two sides, Washington and New Delhi are also forging deep bonds across an array of areas, ranging from farming to space and commerce to security.

Although a refusal by Congress to approve the nuclear deal would be a setback, it is not expected to significantly alter the momentum generated in the relationship, analysts said.

"The nuclear deal is not an event. It is part of a process between the two countries," said one senior Indian foreign ministry official. "There are too many moving parts in this relationship for it to be made or unmade by one issue."

Besides, the deal is expected to take more than a decade to achieve its energy objectives and even then it would not reduce India's dependence on oil, experts said.


Most analysts believe that Washington is backing New Delhi only to build a strong counterbalance to China's economic and political might and the nuclear deal is a price to pay.

India, the world's largest democracy, is Asia's third largest economy and home to the world's fourth largest military and a large English-speaking work force, making it the perfect choice for the United States against a communist China, they say.

Besides, India and the United States, being geographically on opposite sides of the globe cannot threaten the other or intrude into the other's affairs beyond a point, they said.

"Why should we have a problem if they want us to counterbalance China?" asked Naresh Chandra, a former Indian envoy to Washington.

"What does India want? Do we want to be taken forever and ever as an inconsequential country not threatening anyone or rise to a level that people feel concerned if not threatened," he asked.

The new bonding between India and the United States would mean that New Delhi's strategic policies are likely to be influenced by Washington.

But India, with its long history of non-alignment, pride and growing confidence would not slavishly follow the American line, analysts said.

However, sceptics in India advised caution.

"While it is clear India wants to be America's friend and strategic partner, it is less obvious whether the U.S. wants to be India's friend or merely capitalise on this country's growing geopolitical importance and abundant market opportunities," analyst Brahma Chellaney said.

"The least an over-romantic India can do ... is heed to the (former U.S. President Ronald) Reagan dictum: trust but verify," Chellaney wrote in Monday's Hindustan Times.
Some countries are jouleous

Why America Treats Indians So Well, and Arabs So Badly
By Abdullah Abd al-Salaam
Translated By Aja Ishmael
March 4, 2006
Al-Ahram - Egypt- Original Article (Arabic)

Think carefully if you will, about this dissimilarity: the leaders of the West, with George Bush in their lead, are competing to visit and make inroads with India and conclude transactions and agreements with her, while content to send second - or third - tier officials to lecture and offer lessons, dictate conditions and criticize the behavior of governments in the Arab region!

There are two ways for us to interpret this Western behavior. The first is a simple one, and proposes that they hate us, are using double standards and are just carrying on their traditional hostility toward Arabs and Muslims.

The other explanation is more nuanced, and looks at what distinguishes the Indians from us [Arabs]. Why do these Indians meet with such treatment, noting that - until the beginning of the 1990's - Indians looked upon the West with hostility, and considered the CIA the principle cause of the country's poverty and suffering. On the other hand, they aren't fair-skinned or blue-eyed to the point that the West has embraced them. So, there must be other reasons for this Western affection.

The first of these reasons is that India's democracy is real and not a formality or just for outside consumption. It is just as Indian-American Fareed Zakaria says, Americans accept petulance from self-confident democracies, but they refuse the same from dictatorships, and indeed they sometimes pressure them into cooperating. <i>
They seem to read and trust Fareed Zakaria who is coming out as a spokesman for Indian democracy to the Muslim world. That may be his role set by Kissinger in future.</i>

Furthermore, Indian democracy corrects mistakes and uncovers corruption, despite the fact that the task is daunting, the system favors the most well-qualified people, and great strides have been made to reduce inequality based on color, gender and religion. The case of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is exemplary, for he descends from the Sikh minority, but has risen to the highest position based on competence and integrity.

But democracy alone is not enough, for despite the fact that it has existed in India since 1947, the West still wouldn't accept her. So here comes the second reason: the economic, educational, and technological boom that India is experiencing - a boom felt in the West through India's various exports, and because of the Indian workers that have been absorbing American jobs while remaining in India, in what is known as outsourcing.

What makes this boom distinct is that it is the product of - not government decrees as is the case in China - but a society comprised of the largest educated middle class in the world. For that you will find hundreds - nay, thousands - of success stories from individuals who began with nothing and made it to the top. And this resembles what happened in America in the past. This is the image of India in the eyes of the West … a friendly democratic State working for progress and development.

So what about our image? States that emanate violence and terrorism (the September attacks) and in which there is no place for democracy, that do not succeed in achieving economic advancement despite their wealth in natural resources … and unfortunately, many of our actions work to reinforce that image. So can we blame the West for the way it treats us?
<b>US-India nuclear deal to spur 100 billion dollars in energy ventures</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->WASHINGTON (AFP) - A landmark US deal extending civilian nuclear technology to India could open up 100 billion dollars in business ventures for Americans in the Indian energy sector, a top US business lobby group said.
<b>"This agreement could provide the US business community with 100 billion dollars worth of new opportunities in India in the energy sector alone,"</b> said Dan Christman, the US Chamber of Commerce's senior vice president of international affairs.

It would also spur energy-starved India's economic reforms and open markets to US investment in key areas from IT and telecom to pharmaceuticals and insurance, he said as Congress mulled legislative action necessary to clear the deal

"We have to respect the prerogatives of Congress but we are suggesting India-specific amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954," Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, told reporters.

"It's a waiver authority ... We are not seeking relief from US law for any country in the world except India and we don't anticipate putting any country forward. So it is India specific," Burns said after briefing the US Chamber of Commerce on the deal.

The chamber, which represents more than three million American businesses and organizations, said it would make a "massive grassroots effort" to win congressional approval of the agreement.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 8, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Letting India in the Club?


India is a country that had me at hello. Call me biased, but I have a soft spot for countries of one billion people, speaking a hundred different languages and practicing a variety of religions, whose people hold regular free and fair elections and, despite massive poverty, still produce generations of doctors and engineers who help to make the world a more productive and peaceful place. Sure, as today’s bombings in India illustrate, it has its problems — but it is not Iraq. It is a beacon of tolerance and stability.

So I applaud President Bush’s desire to form a deeper partnership with India. There is only one thing I would not do for that cause: endorse — in its current form — the nuclear arms deal that the Bush team just cut with New Delhi. I am all for finding a creative way to bring India into the world’s nuclear family. India deserves to be treated differently than Iran. But we can’t do it in a way that could melt down the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and foster a nuclear arms race in South Asia.

What’s the problem? India has never signed the N.P.T., which is the international legal framework that limited the world’s nuclear club to the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France. For decades, U.S. policy has been very consistent: we do not sell civilian nuclear technology to any country that has not signed the N.P.T. And since that included India, India could never buy reactors, even for its civilian power needs, from America.

But with India eager to buy U.S. nuclear technology, and the U.S. eager to build India into an economic and geostrategic counterweight to China, the Bush team wanted — rightly — to find a way to get India out of the corner it put itself in when it first set off a nuclear blast in 1974. Under the Bush-India deal, India would designate 14 of its 22 nuclear power reactors as "civilian," to be put under international safeguards, leaving the other 8 free from inspections and able to produce as much bomb-grade plutonium as India wanted. In return, U.S. companies would be able to sell India civilian-use nuclear reactors and technology.

This is a troubling deal for two reasons. First, it could only undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yes, I know, the Bush team doesn’t believe in treaties and says the treaty isn’t restraining the rogues anyway. But this treaty is the legal basis by which we have been able to build coalitions against the nuclear rogues to restrain them from spreading W.M.D. One of the key legal bases for isolating Saddam Hussein was that he’d violated the N.P.T., which Iraq had signed. The legal basis by which we are building a coalition against Iran’s going nuclear is the N.P.T. Under the N.P.T., we board ships suspected of carrying W.M.D. Japan, Brazil and Argentina all chose to forgo nuclear weapons to gain access to foreign nuclear technology by abiding by the N.P.T. What are they going to think if India gets a free pass?

What should we have done? Bob Einhorn, who has worked on nonproliferation for every administration since Nixon’s, has the right idea: Tell India that it can have this deal — provided it does something hard that would clearly reinforce the global nonproliferation regime. And that would be halting all production of weapons-grade material, thereby capping India’s stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients where it is. That could be a lever to get Pakistan to do the same. The fewer bomb-making materials around, the less likely it is for any to fall into the hands of terrorists.

"The Bush administration proposed such a production cutoff in negotiations, but dropped the idea when India balked," Mr. Einhorn said. "India says it is willing to adopt the same responsibilities and practices as the other nuclear powers. It so happens that the five original nuclear powers — U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China — have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons. If we are going to bring India into the club, it should do so as well."

India says it needs to keep producing nuclear material to have a more credible deterrent. I can’t judge that. All I know is that we should not go ahead with this deal until India is ready to halt its production of weapons-grade material.

"The problem the Bush administration faces in selling the nuclear deal is not, as the president has said, that ’some people just don’t want to change’ or that they are focused on outdated concerns," Mr. Einhorn argued. "People are willing to change. They want to support the president’s India initiative, even modify longstanding policies. But they want to do it in a way that also serves an objective that is hardly outdated: preventing nuclear proliferation."

REJOINDER # 1 by India’s strategic affairs guru, K Subrahmanyam (To be published soon)

Nuclear Ayatollahs

K Subrahmanyam

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times is known in this country as a great friend and admirer of our democracy and a strong advocate of outsourcing of tasks related to Information Technology to India. Therefore one regrets to find he chose to accept the biased information supplied by a fellow American, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and Disarmament, Robert Einhorn, instead of outsourcing his query to India and then basing his advice on the information gathered thereby.. He wants India to stop further fissile materials production in order to get exceptionalisation from the Nonproliferation Treaty.This view is based on Einhorn’s information that all nuclear powers, including China have stopped fissile materiala production. Robert Einhorn served in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) from 1972 to 1984, in the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department from 1986-92, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State1992-99 and Assistant Secretary of State from 1999-2000.

It was during his tenure in ACDA, China concluded its treaty with Z. A. Bhutto in June 1976 to proliferate nuclear weapons to Pakistan. The US formally agreed to look away from this proliferation in 1982, during the talks between the Pakistani delegation led by Agha Shahi and US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig. During this period Dr. A. Q. Khan dealt with China and obtained the Chinese design of the bomb. According to the very recent disclosures of the Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers, CIA interceded twice in 1976 and 1985 with the Dutch government to save Dr. A. Q. Khan from prosecution. The Pakistanis assembled their bomb in 1987 and the US delayed acknowledging Pakistani bomb-making till 1990.

The Chinese supplied M-9 and M-11 missiles to Pakistan from late 80s. Though Pakistani government acknowledged the receipt of the missiles in 1983 in its Senate, the Clinton Administration (with Robert Einhorn as Deputy Assistant Secretary) maintained for seven long years, till a couple of months before Clinton demitted office, that the State Department was yet to make a determination on the receipt of Chinese missiles in Pakistan. In 1994 the transfer of 5000 ring magnets to sustain the Pakistani centrifuge operations took place from China . This was a deliberate violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty and yet the US readily accepted the Chinese explanation that this transaction was without the permission of Chinese Central Government.

From 1987 onwards, Dr. A. Q. Khan had initiated his proliferation to Iran. Gen. Aslam Beg, the Pakistani Army Chief, at that time informed two Assistant Secretaries of State, Harry Rowan and Henri Sokolski, that Pakistan would be compelled to share nuclear technology with Iran in view of US sanctions on Islamabad.. Dr. A. Q. Khan’s proliferation to Iran continued from 1987 – 2002 and during this period Robert Einhorn was on watch in the State Department on arms control and nuclear proliferation. China also supplied equipment and materials to Iran for its nuclear weapons programme. The Chinese drawings on bomb design were recovered from Libya and till today there is no explanation from the Chinese. While the US has conveyed its displeasure to Pakistan on its refusal to make available Dr. A. Q. Khan for interrogation no one has raised the issue of asking the Chinese to explain their proliferation.. China continues to construct two nuclear power reactors in Pakistan. In India there are concerns that under the cover of reactor construction China continues its proliferation to Pakistan.

Given this history, nuclear proliferation Ayatollahs like Robert Einhorn, Henri Sokolski, Harry Rowan, Strobe Talbott and the entire Clinton Administration command very little credibility in India. If China had stopped its fissile material production,as Einhorn maintains , why does it not make a formal declaration or join in initiating discussions on concluding the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty? Most of these Ayatollahs have spent a lifetime shielding China and Pakistan and finding excuses for the tolerant attitude of past US Administrations for the most blatant proliferation campaign by China-Pakistan axis.

Even according to the most critical estimate by US Strategic community, India over the last 16 years has built up around 95-100 warheads – approximately 5-6 weapons per year. India at that stage was not bound by the norms of Nonproliferation Treaty and had all its indigenous reactors out of safeguards. Now India will be in the nonproliferation regime, though not as a member of NPT, and India is keen on cultivating the goodwill of all friendly nuclear powers. The world today is a balance of power in which prospects of violent conflict among major nations are becoming ever rarer. But India adjoins a failing state, an epicenter of terrorism which has a live proliferation link with China. .

India lives in a dangerous neighborhood and has to sustain its democracy in a region where there are major non-democratic states that have a record of proliferation over the last two decades. In such circumstances the credible minimum deterrent of India should not lose its credibility. The pace of build-up of minimum deterrent by India till now has been very restrained in spite of frequent Pakistani provocative testing of its nuclear-capable missiles obtained from China and North Korea.

Thomas Friedman shoud obtain a detailed account of US policy towards proliferation from China to Pakistan and through it to Iran, Libya and North Korea from those who were in charge and come to hardheaded conclusions. China does not acknowledge that it has stopped fissile material production but is able to mobilize enough American nuclear Ayatollahs to proclaim to the world its nuclear virtues. There is a Hindi proverb, which fits this context. After eating one hundred mice the cat went on its Hajj pilgrimage.

REJOINDER # 2 by Anupam Srivastava, Director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Trade & Security, University of Georgia (E-mail to me).

Friedman has mixed the arguments -- not surprising because he’s not a domain expert. And is relying on Einhorn -- whom I’ve known for years -- who’s also making a selective and biased argument.

Here are the problems/issues:

1. Friedman opens by saying India should join the NPT. And ends by saying India should stop fissile material production. But how does stopping fissile production make India join the NPT? Can India join as a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS)? No. Can NPT be amended to make India join as a NWS? No. That’s why there’s been this stalemate for 30 years. And the Bush Deal found a way out of it -- by not formally recognizing India’s nuclear weapons capability -- simply "separating" it from the civilian complex and making inernational particiption in it possible.

2. A common mistake: NPT DOES NOT prohibit civil nuclear trade with a non-member or even a NNWS. It simply says recipient country’s facility in which the assistance is going must be placed under safeguards -- which will happen under the N deal.

3. FMCT: China has NOT stopped fissile materials production, nor confirmed it will do so -- has simply said it will sign/join the FMCT when it’s ready -- which is exactly what India has also said. Both know that it will be 3 years or more before FMCT is finally negotiated at the CD in Geneva.

4. By then, India should have enough weapons grade fissile material. That is also why they insisted to keep FBRs in the weapons complex, and build additional FBR facilities on the civilian side -- so as to participate in global Nuclear R&D and supply initiatives (GNEP, Gen IV etc)

So, sadly, Friedman is wrong on this one -- probably because he has been coached by people with a vested interest.

Hope this clarifies the issues involved.

REJOINDER # 3 by Ron Somers, President, United States-India Business Council

-----Original Message-----
From: Somers, Ron
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:46 PM
To: ’letters@nytimes.com’
Subject: Thomas Friedman Is Flat Wrong

March 8, 2006

Letters to the Editor,
The New York Times

Re: “Letting India in the Club” (Column by Thomas L. Friedman, March 8, 2006)
To the Editor:

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not prohibit the sharing of civilian nuclear technology with India, contrary to Thomas Friedman’s insinuation.

In fact, the NPT encourages nuclear technology’s peaceful use, and embracing India in this regard will actually advance the NPT’s objectives.

President Bush’s and Prime Minister Singh’s landmark agreement promotes peaceful use of civilian nuclear technology, while preventing diversion of civilian technology to military use. This explains Nobel laureate Mohammed El-Baradei’s unequivocal support of the U.S.-India civilian nuclear initiative.

For the record, the United States has a civilian nuclear sharing agreement with nuclear-armed China. Mr. Friedman fails to explain why India, with a spotless non-proliferation record and strategic partner of the United States, should be treated less favorably than China. Moreover, unlike Iran or North Korea, India has never violated the NPT.

The worry that Japan, Brazil, or Argentina might renounce their adherence to the NPT because of U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with India is fanciful. None of the three or any other NPT party has uttered a syllable suggesting such nuclear adventurism is afoot because of the U.S.-India civilian nuclear initiative.

As regards a fissile material cut-off, India is committed to negotiating this by international treaty that would apply evenhandedly throughout the globe.
India is sandwiched between nuclear-armed Pakistan and China. It cannot be expected to compromise its national security anymore than was the United States when confronted with Soviet missiles in Cuba.

To make fissile material cut-off the pre-condition to India joining the nuclear club is equivalent to killing the deal, and Thomas Friedman knows this. If this deal fails, India will remain outside IAEA safeguards, the world will be less safe, and the budding strategic partnership between the United States and democratic India will be stillborn.

Fifty-four per cent (54%) of India’s population is under the age of 25; this translates to 600 million young Indians who were not even born at the time of the signing of the NPT. President Bush has it right engaging India in its development of energy security. America’s involvement will ensure transfer of international best practices and greater safety standards, while stemming global warming – with the indirect benefit of spurring job creation in India and here at home.

Ignoring 1/5th the world’s population that supports the world’s largest democracy, rule of law, and which embraces a vibrant and free press, secular values, and is aligned with the U.S. on numerous international geopolitical challenges, would prove a Himalayan blunder that belongs to the round-world thinking that we had hoped Thomas Friedman and others have outgrown


Ron Somers, President United States-India Business Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 1615 H Street NW Washington, DC 20062, 202-463-5626

REJOINDER # 4 by Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Foreign Affairs Editor of THE HINDUSTAN TIMES, New Delhi (E-Mail to me)

The key problems with Friedman’s piece.

1. Seems to have forgotten that India didn’t sign the NPT because it essentially gave India a stark choice: if you want access to civilian nuclear technology than you must surrender your nuclear arsenal. He smartly leaves out that the NPT would have required India to unilaterally disarm.

He quotes Bob Einhorn as urging that if India wants to be a nuclear power it should do what they do and apply a fissile material freeze. Two subpoints here:

2. India has accepted strictures on its nuclear policy that the five nuclear powers do not: Safeguards on nuclear facilities are in perpetuity, the facilities cannot switch from nuclear to civilian and back. The deal is not one of perfect reciprocity.

3. He claims China has agreed to a fissile material freeze. This is highly contentious. Einhorn himself was asked in a closed door conference to provide any shred of evidence to prove this claim. He could not. There has been no official statement by China to this effect. When Einhorn was in the Clinton Administration he told Indian journalists that Pakistan was on the verge of overtaking India in terms of weapons grade plutonium production. Knowing this, it is remarkable he feels India should freeze its production at this point.

4. Finally, Friedman completely fails to understand how important the nuclear deal is to wiping out the deep institutional distrust of the US that exists in New Delhi. To say "I support Bush’s new policy on India" and then say "but I oppose the nuclear deal" is an oxymoron.

Friedman seems to have only one source, Einhorn -- a nonproliferation hawk.

The column only proves the axiom in journalism that a one-source story is almost sure to be erroneous.

REJOINDER # 5 by foreign policy specialist Indrani Bagchi of THE TIMES OF INDIA, NEW DELHI (E-Mail to me)

I think Tom Friedman needs some reality checks in this world. It also shows that no matter how much he says he likes india, he cannot possibly make Bob Einhorn his non-proliferation guru. Einhorn is the kind who is bloody-minded enough to say India should cap its fissile material, while not having the balls to get China or Pakistan to do the same. Einhorn in a conversation with me in 1999 actually said that Pakistan (then) had more fissile material than India. Clearly, if he knew it, so did the Indian establishment. But since then, India has not made a push to ratchet up its own fissile materials production __ which ought to say something about India. Something that ayatollahs like Einhorn will never realise.

My disappointment with Friedman on this issue is profound. at least I would have expected him to think independently for himself rather than blindly be PR for Einhorn. And to think independently, one has to reorient one’s mind from the round world to the flat. and Friedman has leagues to go before that happens.
Monday, March 13, 2006

Mangoes for Uncle Sam, from Delhi with love

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: There is a sweeter side to the India-United States nuclear deal, namely Indian mangoes, which will begin to appear in US food stores next year around spring.

After years of to and fro negotiations, India has won approval for the export of its mangoes to the American market. The mangoes available here mostly come from Mexico. The fruit, which is an acquired taste, is not as popular as it should be in this country and the arrival of the Indian mangoes in the market is likely to be backed by an advertising campaign.

Pakistani mangoes, which by all accounts and all measures are far superior to any varieties that India can produce, will remain denied to American connoisseurs of the fruit, since Pakistan has made no discernable attempt to export to the US its mangoes and even its juicy and luscious kinoos (oranges), which India does not have.

According to actress and Indian cookbook writer Madhur Jaffrey, writing in the New York Times on Sunday, while India gets nuclear fuel for its energy needs, America, doing far better in what might be called a stealth victory, finally gets mangoes. “Not those pleasantly hued but lifeless rocks that pass as mangoes in most American grocery stores. Definitely not the fibrous, unyielding, supersized Florida creations that boast long shelf life and easy handling and shipping but little else. They might hint at possibilities but provide no satisfaction. None. What America will be getting is the King of Fruit, Indian masterpieces that are burnished like jewels, oozing sweet, complex flavours acquired after two millenniums of painstaking grafting.”

The New York-based Ms Jaffrey, once married to actor Saeed Jaffrey, reminds Americans that the mangoes will be seasonal and people will learn to wait for them, just as Indians do. “They cannot be pushed to grow in hothouses. Indian mango trees, many of them hundreds of years old - and some reputed to be thousands of years old - need to breathe the same free, fresh air Indians breathe and live through India’s three main seasons: summer, the monsoons and winter. Only then will they deign to bear fruit.” She recalls that one mango tree in Chandigarh, East Punjab, bore about 30,000 pounds of mangoes every year for 150 years until it was hit by lightning, which made it fall over.

Ms Jaffrey recalls that one attempt she made to “smuggle” Indian mangoes to America was unsuccessful. <b>A customs inspector asked her if she was carrying any mangoes. When she replied that she was, the fruit was confiscated. She later saw customs officers slicing and eating the confiscated mangoes. </b>She recounts that the Buddha is known to have rested under shady mango trees, while Akbar the Great accelerated the process of mango planting and grafting by laying out a garden with 100,000 trees. She lists three popular varieties that would come to the American market in a year’s time: the langra from Varanasi, the dussehri from Lucknow and the Alphonso from Bombay.
If You or Your Relatives Go to America …

What do the Chinese tell one another about the United States? What follows is a sampling of advice, from the State-run China Youth Daily.

Translated By Haywood Ho

March 7, 2006
Original Article (Chinese)

If you or your friends or relatives go to America, and the following events happen, don't think too much of it, because these things happen only in America:


In America, if you order a pizza and an ambulance at the same time, the pizza will get there faster than the ambulance.

In America, people will park their expensive cars outside their homes, while the garage is filled with worthless old clothes.

In America, people will use phones with caller ID and voicemail, but will never return calls.

In America, pharmacies will allow patients to hand in their forms at the back of the store, but allow healthy people to but their cigarettes near the entrance.

In America, when people order a double cheeseburger and a large fries, they may order a diet coke to go with it.

In America, banks will leave their doors wide open, but because of "safety" concerns, secure the fountain pens on the counter with string.


In America, there are many restrictions on under-eighteens being able to drive, but at the same time, the army allows teenagers of the same age to drive tanks and airplanes.

In America, people under 21 may not smoke due to health reasons, but people who are 21 in the army can use all kinds of weapons.

In America, politicians will use tens of millions of dollars to investigate an official whose mistress accepted a bribe of tens of thousands of dollars.

In America, you may go to court over a cup of coffee that is too hot; thieves that climb up onto the roof of your house and fall down may sue you, and robbers can also sue you because of your company's lack of oversight of their firearms.

In America, you can use ATMs while still in the car, and you may find that the keys were designed for the blind.
<img src='http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2001/06/13/bellonbush.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>U.S. May Hurt India-Pakistan Peace Efforts</b> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Analysts say U.S. opposition to the pipeline is aimed at curbing Iran, which Washington says is trying to build nuclear weapons, while the U.S. offer of nuclear aid to India reflects an effort to offset China's growing power in Asia.

But both policies could undermine peace efforts between India and Pakistan, which have rapidly rising needs for energy, the local and international experts said. It also signals that Washington places its interests in the region above those of sovereign governments, they said.

"This shows the extreme contradictions of the American policy in the region and indicates that it is only looking after its own national interests, which are completely contrary to the interests of other countries," said Talat Masood, a former Pakistani general and political analyst.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Varanasi blasts: US issues advisory to its citizens</b> ?
Reggie Today, 05:27 AM IP: | Post #163|
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 3-November 03
Member No.: 125


Just got back to the USA from a week long trade mission to India. Met and visited with several key interloculaters and ministers in the IT, Agriculture, Commerce ministries. Also, ficci and other organizations.

Coming soon after President Bush's visit, we were received warmly and most of our meetings reinforced the feel-good developing U.S. - India relationship with a few mou's and deals signed between companies in both countries. "The last mile" schism remains. Indians saying they have bent backwards to reduce tarrifs etc (from 100% to 46% now) and we countering that that is not yet sufficient. Perhaps, Indinas need to acclerate the reduction in bureaucracy, tarrifs at a much faster pace. As ususal, I found Indian politicians and bureaucrats using the pretext of democracy as an excuse for non-performance.

The crowning glory of my trip was the personal meeting with His Excellency President Abdul Kalam. The half hour meeting was intense, and he asked extremely incisicive questions on a project I am trying to implement in India. He was clearly prepared for the interview and discussed specific questions and issues (unlike other ministers) and appropriateness for Indian conditions. Dr. Kalam outlined his vision for India (on areas under discussion) and encouraged me to come up with actionable plans within the next 8 weeks.

Still recovering from the jet-lag. More later!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>The US-India CEO Forum agenda</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Both India, America stand to gain from nuclear pact: Kissinger </b>

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a newspaper opinion piece hailed this month's nuclear deal between the United States and India, which "promises to make a seminal contribution to international peace and prosperity."

Kissinger, who served as secretary of state between 1973 and 1977, hailed the historic agreement as heralding <b>"an unprecedented level of cooperation and interdependence between the two powers.</b>

"In a period preoccupied with concerns over terrorism and the<span style='color:red'> potential clash of civilizations, the emerging cooperation between the two great democracies, India and the United States, introduces a positive and hopeful perspective,"</span> Kissinger wrote in a Washington Post editorial which also appeared in other US media.

<b>"Too often America's India policy is justified -- occasionally with a wink -- as a way to contain China. But the reality has been that so far India and America have found it in their interest to maintain a constructive relationshiop with China," </b>Kissinger wrote.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"To be sure, America's global strategy benefits from Indian participation in building a new world order.</span> But India will not serve as America's foil with China, and will resent any attempts to use it in that role."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US sets duties on India paper notebooks</b>

The United States has set preliminary anti-dumping duties of up to 258.21 percent on lined-paper school notebooks from China, the U.S. Commerce Department said on Monday. Washington also has <b>set preliminary duties of up to 110.43 percent on the same goods from India, the department said in response to a case filed in September by school paper suppliers in Ohio, Tennessee and Georgia.</b>
<b>Bush's Indian Ally </b>
By Jim Hoagland
Thursday, April 20, 2006; Page A25
NEW DELHI -- At a time when even friendly governments are quick to distance themselves from the United States and its pugnacious, embattled president, India is a strategic maverick. The former firebrand of the Non-Aligned Movement has chosen this moment to forge a close partnership with Washington and to speak up positively about American power in world affairs.

"This lack of nuclear cooperation is the last remaining cobweb from our old relationship, and we can now sweep it aside," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said with an expressive wave of his hand. "There are no other barriers to a more productive, more durable relationship with the United States. The potential is enormous for our two nations."

India is the new China in the eyes of the Bush administration, which has promised to help this once-slumbering Asian giant develop into one of the world’s five or six major economic and political powers. That undertaking has instilled a new sense of security in the Indian capital and erased long-standing tensions.

Singh praised "the new thinking" in Washington during our conversation and easily skipped over renewed U.S. arms sales to Pakistan, American pressure for action on Iran and other topics that would have sunk most of his predecessors into bitter grumbling about neo-imperialism.

The Indian leader's impressively modest and precise manner sets a moderate tone for his remarks. A visitor quickly understands why he is trusted and respected by his peers in the rough-and-tumble world of Indian politics. That does not prevent him from being candid in his assessments:

<b>"We recognize that the United States is the preeminent superpower in the world and that it is in India's interest to have good relations with the United States . . . as a very important partner in realizing our development ambitions,"</b> he acknowledged.

One way of helping with development and environmental protection, Singh quickly suggested, was for the U.S. Congress to approve legislative changes that clear the way for the United States to provide civilian nuclear technology and supplies to India after a 32-year ban triggered by India’s development and testing of nuclear weapons.

Bush and Singh reached agreement last July on reciprocal steps for the resumption of nuclear energy cooperation outside the international Non-Proliferation Treaty. Singh has persuaded his left-wing allies in the coalition government he heads not "to wreck the boat" by opposing "an agreement that is in India’s interest" because of their suspicion of Washington.

The administration hopes to move the legislative changes through Congress in May, giving Bush a badly needed foreign policy success as well as the first direct American influence over India’s nuclear weapons program, which would be partially covered by new safeguards and inspections.

Singh would not speculate on the consequences of a refusal by Congress to accept the agreement. But in response to questions, he did identify two things that he does not expect to happen.

Asked if India would ever put all of its reactors under full-scope safeguards -- as some U.S. critics say Bush should have demanded -- he replied: "No. We would like the world to move toward universal nuclear disarmament. But given the circumstances, we need a strategic nuclear weapons program. In our neighborhood, China is a nuclear power and on our western frontier there is Pakistan, which developed its weapons through clandestine proliferation."

And he said he could not imagine circumstances that would require India to resume nuclear testing, an option that his Indian critics assert is a sovereign right. "Our scientists tell me they need no further tests. As for the distant future, I cannot predict forever, but our commitment is to continue our unilateral moratorium."

The conversation underscored for me that flaws in the nuclear draft agreement are heavily outweighed by the advantages it brings in cutting global pollution, easing pressure on oil markets and bringing a substantial part of India's nuclear program under international supervision.

Noting that Chinese President Hu Jintao was visiting the United States this week, Singh insisted that "we are not developing our relationship with the U.S. at the cost of our relationship with China, which is our neighbor and with which our trade is growing at a handsome rate. . . . President Bush told me this is a sensible way to proceed, and that America will remain engaged with China, too."

On Iran, he urged Washington to allow "the maximum scope for dialogue and discussions. The Iranian regime may need some time to settle down." But, he added, "we are very clear that we do not want another nuclear weapons power in the region."

India is moving from a past of shaking an angry finger in the American face to providing a helping hand for U.S. power in the future. The Senate and House should move expeditiously to set this transformation in motion.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)