India-US News and Discussion

[Anujan]

I and top Indian scientist don't believe it. The link is been provided above.
--
I do believe America was behind 9/11 attacks.
--

End of the day we have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for the link. I saw it, and read it before I answered your post. I also happen to know it is complete BS. BS peddled by the US senate website. It goes on to say

Fact: India issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change in June 2008 disputing man-made global warming fears and declared the country of one billion people had no intention of stopping its energy growth or cutting back its CO2 emissions

And links to a blog to substantiate this "Fact" !!!! (did you notice it links to a blog ? Did you also notice clicking on it says "page not found" ?). May I politely suggest that the actual report linked from Indian Prime minister's website would be a better source ?

In its very first paragraph it says

"India is faced with the challenge of sustaining its rapid economic growth while dealing with the global threat of climate change. This threat emanates from accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, anthropogenically generated through long-term and intensive industrial growth and high consumption lifestyles in developed countries"....Recognizing that climate change is a global challenge, India will engage actively in multilateral negotiations in the UN framework convention on climate change in a positive constructive and forward looking manner....Our approach should be compatible with our role as a responsible and enlightened member of the international community, ready to make our contribution to the global challenge, which impacts humanity as a whole.

And further down, the document says

The fourth assessment report of the IPCC concluded from direct observations of changes in temperature, sea level and snow cover in the northern hemisphere during 1850 to present, that warming of the earth's climate system is unequivocal....Multimodal averages show that the temperature increases during 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999 may range from 1.1 to 6.4c

Where exactly did India deny (a) global warming is happening ? (b) It is caused due to human activity ? Which musharraf did Unkil's senate pull the FACT from ? The report denies that Per capita contribution of Indian population to CO2 emissions is substantial. These are two SEPARATE issues ! There is a difference between saying

the house is not on fire

and

I did not set it on fire

India is saying the latter. I can understand what got Unkil's goat. The report while laying out the framework for India's action plan says

We are convinced that the principles of equity that must underlie the global approach must allow each inhabitant of earth equal entitlement to global atmospheric resource.

This "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is so snobbish and so French !

Please dont get caught up in Psy-ops. And may I ask if your belief vis-a-vis global warming is religious or scientific ? Because if it is the former, we can agree to disagree. If it is the latter, I would find it ludicrous. And by the way, would "Top Indian scientists" that side with you, also happen to include Rajendra K. Pachauri the chairman of the intergovernmental panel for climate change, who got awarded a nobel peace prize for his work on modeling climate change ?

[Arun_S]

Kakodkar had sounded warning on NPT link to ENR

Siddharth Varadarajan

U.S. effort at NSG would be “breach of trust”

India must take ’concerted action’ to avert new rule

NEW DELHI: The United Progressive Alliance government may insist it is “not concerned” by the recent American move to get the G8 to prohibit the sale of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to India pending a similar ban by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. But six months ago, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar publicly drew attention to the restrictive moves afoot and warned that what Washington was pushing was “contrary to the spirit” of India’s bilateral agreement with the United States.

In his inaugural address to a seminar on Global Nuclear Challenges, organised by the Centre for Air Power Studies on January 10, Dr. Kakodkar spoke of “credible but unofficial information” that the Consultative Group of the NSG was “moving very close to the decision that ENR technologies would be available on the condition that one must have signed the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].”

He was referring to the NSG draft on ENR transfer rules which emerged from the November 2008 meeting of the nuclear cartel. Barring a few “bracketed” sentences, that draft has the informal approval of the NSG’s 45 members. And it is the unbracketed bulk of the text that the G8 has decided to implement from now on. That text is not public but diplomatic sources told The Hindu the proposed conditions for ENR transfers include NPT adherence. The U.S. also went on record last October to say getting NPT conditionality at the NSG was its top priority.
“Targeted at India”

Contrary to official spin that the new G8 ban (and the NSG ‘clean text’ it implements) is aimed at “rogue states” such as North Korea and Iran or “non-state actors”, Dr. Kakodkar was clear about the aim of the NPT rule: “Obviously, such a condition is directly targeted at India.”

He said this because the current NSG guidelines prohibit nuclear transfers of any kind, including ENR items, to countries outside the NPT. India secured a clean waiver from this guideline in September 2008. If the NSG now adopts a new guideline on ENR transfers specifying NPT membership, India would be the only country affected because Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — the other three outside the treaty — were already banned from receiving any nuclear transfers by the existing catch-all guideline.

India, the AEC chairman had warned, “needs to take concerted action to make sure the NSG does not take that decision. And if the NSG does take that decision, it would be a breach of trust and it would be contrary to the spirit which has been spelt out in the Bilateral Agreement with the U.S.”

The ENR issue was important, Dr. Kakodkar said, not because India was desperate about getting any technology in these areas. “The issue is how the world looks at us.” In particular, India does not want to be singled out as a target for an ENR technology ban, least of all because it has not signed the NPT.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who spoke on the issue in Parliament last week when the ENR controversy erupted, said the G8’s decision could not be equated with the NSG. “We have received a clean waiver from 45 NSG countries… therefore we are not concerned with what resolution or position G8 takes in respect of a particular issue.” He added that individual countries had the right to decide whether to trade or not.

For India, however, what matters is the NSG waiver.

The NSG has not yet taken a final decision. But this still raises the question of why Washington is pushing rules at the NSG which amount to a “breach of trust” and which are “contrary to the spirit” of the Indo-U.S. agreement. And, of course, what “concerted action” New Delhi is planning to prevent its clean waiver from being formally diluted.

[shravan]

Anujan,

I don't believe it and never will, so debating on this issue with me is of no use.

I just wanted to know where India as a country stands on Global Warming and its good to know that we have people like B.P. Radhakrishna.

--

More Than 700 (Previously 650) International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[putnanja]

Space agreement to help launch ‘India-U.S. 3.0’

New Delhi: Despite last-minute wrinkles, India is still looking to sign an end-use monitoring agreement to ease the sale of U.S. military hardware during the visit here of Hillary Clinton, but the highlight of Monday’s discussions between External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and the U.S. Secretary of State will be the unveiling of a new strategic dialogue architecture and the signing of an agreement to facilitate the launch of U.S. satellites and satellites with U.S. components on Indian launch vehicles.

South Block officials say the new dialogue architecture is intended to take Indo-U.S. relations to a higher level, 3.0 — to use Ms. Clinton’s phrase — and will cover areas like nonproliferation, security, education, health and development. Although the U.S. side is keen on India making public the sites where U.S.-supplied nuclear reactors will be located, a final decision has yet to be taken on this in South Block.

The new Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA) to be signed on Monday will cover launches involving satellites owned by U.S. government or academic institutions or by third country space agencies and universities which have U.S. equipment on board. Since the components and satellites will have to be integrated with ISRO’s launch vehicles, the TSA will provide for monitoring by the U.S. side to ensure against diversion or misuse of equipment.


In March 2006, Frontline reported that the U.S. was insisting on “a full-fledged TSA, which included restrictive movement of the payload, constant overseeing presence of U.S. escorts, and impermeable firewalls between civil and military payloads.”

According to ISRO officials, the final text of the agreement to be signed follows the standard template the U.S. negotiates with all countries. “Its provisions are essentially driven by U.S. law and India did not have much flexibility during its negotiations,” an official told The Hindu.
..
..
The agreement to be signed is apparently an umbrella one — similar to the TSA that China and the U.S. signed — with individual licensing by the State Department likely dispensed with, but India will not yet be able to enter the lucrative market for the launch of U.S. commercial satellites or third country commercial satellites with U.S. components till a separate Commercial Space Launch Agreement (CSLA) is signed. “The TSA is a necessary but not sufficient condition for commercial launches,” said an ISRO official. India and the U.S. have been working on the draft of a CSLA for some time now but there are still major differences between the two sides.
...
...

[pgbhat]

Top Article: Prepare To Respond G. Parthasarathy

Given his desire to "reset" relations with Russia, US president Barack Obama's visit to Moscow on July 6-7 was intended to show improvement in an otherwise strained relationship, marked by deep Russian suspicions about American moves to expand the NATO alliance, by co-opting Russia's neighbours like Ukraine and Georgia. Such moves were perceived as attempts to strategically 'contain' Russia. While suspicions remain, the visit was marked by a landmark agreement signalling Russian support to the US in Afghanistan. Russia agreed to permit 4,500 flights annually across Russian airspace by US military aircraft carrying military supplies to Afghanistan. The Americans have also heralded the understanding reached on a framework for a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev agreed they would reduce their strategic nuclear warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 warheads each to between 1,500 and 1,675 and that they would reduce the current ceiling of 1,600 long-range strategic missiles, to between 500 and 1,100, over the next seven years. While this has been described as a great step towards nuclear disarmament, the reality is somewhat different. Even at reduced levels, the two countries will retain enough weaponry to destroy each other and the rest of the world several times over. Between them, they today possess an estimated 22,400 nuclear warheads.

The real reason for all the hype and hoopla about START lies in the fact that the forthcoming review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is due next year. The Obama administration cannot allow this review to end in a fiasco as in 2005, when non-nuclear weapons states assailed the US and other powers for failing to fulfil their obligations to disarm and grant unhindered access to nuclear energy to those who have foregone the nuclear option. The 2005 fiasco was followed by growing international concern over Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The US would showcase START with Russia as symbolising its commitment to nuclear disarmament.

More ominously for India, it appears that the US may be seeking to divert attention from the lack of serious commitment to nuclear disarmament by focusing on the need to "universalise" NPT membership, by endorsing the suggestion that the real threat of proliferation arises from countries like India which have not signed the NPT and that they should be pressured into doing so. Islamic countries, particularly in the Arab world, are expected to support this argument as a means to pressure Israel into foregoing its nuclear weapons. The US move in the G8 to deny enrichment and reprocessing facilities to India as a non-signatory to NPT has to be seen in this context.

Obama is reportedly planning to take his nuclear agenda forward by hosting a summit of around 30 countries in 2010. How should India respond? While India has not done anything to undermine NPT's efficacy, it would have to take the moral high ground by noting that on issues of nuclear disarmament the World Court's views should not be ignored, but implemented. The World Court was asked its opinion on a query: "Is the threat of use of nuclear weapons permitted under International Law?" On July 8, 1996, the court held that states possessing nuclear weapons have not just a need but an obligation to commence negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. It also held that the use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the principles of international law, though there was some doubt about the extreme contingency when "the very survival of a state" was threatened.

Despite the World Court's view, the US, in its 2005 Doctrine of Joint Operations, reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even to "rapidly end a war" on terms favourable to it. The UK and France have reserved the right to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Russia has discarded the Soviet policy of no first use. India should work with non-nuclear weapons states to move a resolution in the UN General Assembly later this year declaring the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as inadmissible and calling on all states to foreswear threat of use of nuclear weapons. The guiding principles of an equitable global nuclear regime are reflected in the opinion of the World Court, more than in the NPT.

Non-proliferation and climate change will figure in the agenda for talks with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, an influential advocate of strengthening India-US relations, during her India visit. Reprocessing of spent fuel is imperative if we are to proceed with our indigenous, three-stage, thorium-based nuclear energy programme. Denial of reprocessing facilities will slow down our nuclear power programme, inhibit India-US cooperation on nuclear power and not exactly serve the cause of replacing polluting hydrocarbons with clean nuclear energy. Sadly, it would also undermine the letter and spirit of the October 2008 123 Agreement and the "clean waiver" that the Nuclear Suppliers Group accorded to India.

The writer is a former high commissioner to Pakistan

[Anujan]

Brace for EUM Tamasha on Monday

Reuters: U.S., India expected to sign defence pact on Monday

The United States and India are expected to sign an agreement on Monday that would take a major step towards allowing the sale of sophisticated U.S. arms to the South Asian nation, three senior U.S. officials said. Known as an "end-use monitoring" agreement and required by U.S. law for such weapons sales, the pact would let Washington check that India was using any arms for the purposes intended and preventing the technology from leaking to others.

"If we don't sign that, it will be a definite slap in the face," said a U.S. congressional aide ahead of Clinton's visit to New Delhi, where she will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna on Monday.

[csharma]

Well, if the EUM is signed despite AK Antony and the services being against it then it would be another capitulation back to back.

A previous newstory reported that US is now working with PM and EAM after AK Antony did not want to sign it. Let's see what happens. The most likely outcome is that India will sign it after the PM will intervene and then it will be spun as big Indo US relation thing by the spinmasters.

One question I have is why would India want to sign EUM and buy equipment from the US when it can get similar equipment from others without signing anything like EUM?

[csharma]

India, US trying hard to wrap up end-user pact

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 796792.cms

NEW DELHI: Indian and American negotiators were engaged in last minute attempts to wrap up negotiations on the end-user monitoring pact, which is
needed for US companies to sell arms and certain technology to India. Sources said both sides were working towards concluding the pact but there were ‘difficulties’. It is understood that the issue is now down to two sentences in the agreement.

The effort was to conclude negotiations so that the-end user pact can be signed on Monday after talks between US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and external affairs minister S M Krishna. Nevertheless, the Indian side has been very cautious on moving forward on this pact, which would allow the US to monitor the military hardware and technology sold to India.

[svinayak]

One question I have is why would India want to sign EUM and buy equipment from the US when it can get similar equipment from others without signing anything like EUM?

That is the price of the strategic partnership

[csharma]

One question I have is why would India want to sign EUM and buy equipment from the US when it can get similar equipment from others without signing anything like EUM?

That is the price of the strategic partnership

So what exactly is the stratgeic partnetship getting for India?

[svinayak]

So what exactly is the stratgeic partnetship getting for India?

I dont know. I am still looking

[arun]

X Posted for entrail reading in the aftermath of the Balochistan word being incorporated in Sharm el Sheikh Indo-Pak declaration.

Excerpted, question about India’s role in Balochistan (and Kashmir) asked by Pakistan’s Dawn Television of US Secretary of State and her rather ambiguous answer:

Interview With Anwar Iqbal of Dawn Television

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 17, 2009

QUESTION: There are some in Pakistan who say that Indians are using Balochistan to interfere in Balochistan. Will you discuss this with the India? In his inaugural speech, President Obama said that Kashmir is one issue that needs to be resolved. And now, your administration does not seem to talk about it. It seems that they no longer see Kashmir as an issue that needs to be resolved.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m going to raise everything that we believe is of significance with the Indian Government. I believe that it is in India’s interest for Pakistan to be stable, democratic, free of terrorism. I think that the disputes between India and Pakistan, which are historical and long-standing, should be looked at with fresh eyes, and there should be an effort to build some mutual trust. And from what I hear, it was a very good meeting between Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Gillani.

The United States stands ready to support the steps that India and Pakistan may take together, but we know that the only way these matters can be finally resolved is between the two countries, but it’s not just the government, but the people. And so we will encourage that, but we know that it has to be left to Pakistan and India for there to be any resolution.

US State Department

[csharma]

So what exactly is the stratgeic partnetship getting for India?

I dont know. I am still looking

Same here. After all these years, what I have figured is that strategic relation means India gets a nuclear deal and can buy reactors. US gets to sell reactors, weapons and also get India to look at Pakistan , Iran etc from US point of view.

In summary strategic relationship means maybe India can grow faster economically(with the nuclear reactors) and stay contented as a junior partner of US sort of like Japan.

Is it really in India's interest to have a stable Pakistan. What's wrong with what is going on in Pakistan now. Pak Army should keep fighting internal enemies. That suits India perfectly.

[NRao]

So what exactly is the stratgeic partnetship getting for India?

Stroking of the ego and more instructions.

[arun]

Excerpted, portion of interview of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dealing with the India-US Nuclear Agreement :

Interview With Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 17, 2009

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the cornerstone of such strategic relationship fashioned by the Bush Administration was the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. Now is the Obama Administration just as committed to taking that deal forward? Because – I ask this because the recent G-8 declaration regarding restrictions on transfer of atomic technology to non-NPT states has led some in India to believe that the Obama Administration is determined to get India to sign the NPT before we move forward.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, of course, we are committed to the civilian nuclear agreement that was signed during the Bush Administration. I hope to have some announcements about the continuing implementation of that agreement when I arrive in India. And I want to discuss with Indian leaders how we can work together for a common purpose of preventing the proliferation of nuclear material and weapons to states and non-state actors who pose a threat to India, to the United States, and to many countries around the world. So of course, there will be a very serious discussion that will begin with my visit, continue through our important strategic dialogue.
But I think we share a common desire to make sure that we don’t have irresponsible states, and especially non-state actors such as terrorist networks, that we both have to be very vigilant against acquiring weapons that we know should not be in their hands.

QUESTION: So are you saying that the clean waiver that India got from the Nuclear Suppliers Group last year will override all else, that you will therefore go ahead with these various nuclear agreements on your trip here, and therefore, the Obama Administration is not making signing the NPT as critical to furthering the strategic relationship?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what I want to speak with your leaders about is what the possible new approaches to nonproliferation might be – global and regional regimes that would make sense for India, as well as other nations. The Obama Administration is, as are the other G-8 members, as you referenced in the agreement that they put out, very concerned about proliferation.

Now, the United States is very committed to our nuclear agreement with India. But I want to hear from the Indian leaders what they believe would be useful steps that we could mutually pursue that would avoid the concerns that I think we share about such material falling into the wrong hands.

US State Department

[sourab_c]

Signing of the EUM will be a sad day for India. We have managed to stay away from such "restrictive" pacts for a long time. No matter what our side negotiates, the pact will still be restrictive in nature. I can now only hope that we don't give in too easily.

Assuming we do sign the EUM, it will be very interesting to see how far the UPA government will go to please the US. Hope it does not affect the MRCA outcome.

[svinayak]

Hillary visit: India should be firm
Category » Editorial Posted On Friday, July 10, 2009

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other US officials are soon going to descend on New Delhi. A big number of US and UK leaders such as Condoleeza Rice and the British Foreign Secretary, David Milibrand visited Delhi shortly after the Mumbai blasts. Their sole aim was to prevent any strong action against Pakistan in view of the anger in India and the public condemnation worldwide. Clearly, the intention of both the Americans and the British was to use India and Pakistan to fight the Taliban, which is fighting against the US and the NATO.
The two did succeed in pacifying the UPA Government. Young 'Milibrain' (which describes Milibrand better) posing as a great champion of truth claimed: "I have no evidence of Pakistan state directing terrorist activities against India . I would never make that claim without that evidence." Either Milibrain's claim was due to ignorance (which shows British Intelligence in a very poor light) or for ulterior motives. The latter is more likely. Europeans think that the Albino is a big intriguer and a liar. The real reason is "tilt" towards Pakistan , which was England 's creation. The truth is conclusively proved in following paragraph:
Ahmad Rashid, the famous Pakistani journalist and an authority on Taliban has written in his widely-acclaimed book, "Descent into Chaos/ The U.S. and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia": "The ISI (and Pakistan army) has for more than 20 years, for its own purposes, deliberately and consistently funded and incubated a variety of Islamist groups, including in particular Jaish-e-Mohammad and Laskhar-e-Taiba. Since the days of the anti-Soviet Mujaheddin, the Pakistan army saw the Jihadis as an ingenious and cost-effective means of both dominating Afghanistan - something they finally achieved with the retreat of Soviets in 1987 - and bogging down the Indian army in Kashmir - something they succeeded in achieving from 1990 onwards." ... "Hamid Gul, (the then director of ISI), who was largely responsible for developing this strategy, once explained to me, "if the ISI 'encourages the Kashmiris, it is understandable"
It is more than seven months since the Pakistani terrorists, trained and armed by the ISI and its government, struck in Mumbai. Though the US and the UK preached New Delhi to fight terror in cooperation with Islamabad , as both were fighting a common enemy, Pakistan has done nothing concrete to punish the terrorists involved in Mumbai or in closing down the numerous terrorist training camps and hate-preaching Madarasas even now. According to some estimates, there are 20,000 Madarasas in Pakistan . Saed, who founded the Laskhar-e-Taiba and master-minded the Mumbai attack, was let off by the court in Pakistan .
Importantly, the US could have put effective pressure on Islamabad to close the terrorist training camps and Madarasas, as it keeps a bankrupt Pakistan afloat. On the other hand, the US is flooding Pakistan with money in the name of fighting terror. This only emboldens Islamabad to attack India . Despite our protests, since the birth of Pakistan , the US has been giving arms and economic aid to Islamabad under various pretexts such as fighting communism and now terror. However, all this is being used against India .
In the past, Pakistan loudly said and is saying even today that its main enemy is India . We are now being told by the US that we have nothing to worry about other than liberal economic aid to Pakistan (when the US, itself is bankrupt today). Sadly, this is a repeat of the old song. Moreover, Pakistan army is putting up a show of fighting the Taliban and making false claims of victory. Hence, we should not expect any help from the US , our so-called partner in the fight against terror. Both Pakistan and the US are playing a double game. The main question for us today is: what do we do to protect our national interest and our people?
We should not take a defensive posture in our incoming talks with Hillary Clinton and other US officials and tell them firmly our policy. We will neither reduce any troops from our western border nor will we give up our nuclear arsenal. The two are absolutely necessary for our national defense, in view of Pakistan 's hostile and offensive posture. Sending terrorists to India is an offensive posture. Islamabad has very clearly said that India is its main enemy and its nuclear arsenal is against it only. The US was saying so also. Thus, our nuclear arsenal ensures that Pakistan can never use any nuclear bombs against us.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, it is a bilateral matter, between India and Pakistan , to be resolved peacefully and bilaterally according to the Simla agreement. We do not want the U.S. as a mediator, facilitator or under any other fancy name. Nehru had correctly said that Kashmir is not the cause but a symptom of Pakistan 's hostile attitude. More than the US or any other country, we want to live in peace with Pakistan for the benefit of both of us.
Gandhiji had agreed to the partition of India in 1947 on the condition that it will be between two brothers. Any pretension of the Pakistan government, that it is the protector of Muslims interests is hollow and devoid of truth. An objective study of conditions of Muslims in pre-partition India shows that they are much better off in Indian than Muslims in Pakistan with its murderous military dictators. This goes to prove that the claim of Pakistan and its former president Parvez Musharraf that it has a natural interest in Kashmir is a fabricated excuse for creating trouble in the Valley.
Hence, we have to protect our national interest and our people on our strength, based on our own judgment. The only concession we can give to the US is that we will take a defensive posture and not attack Pakistan , unless attacked overtly or covertly. This should enable Pakistan to fight the Taliban without any danger from us.
PK Nigam, -INFA
http://www.centralchronicle.com/viewnew ... cleID=9652

[shravan]

US drives hard arms bargain

Washington, July 18: The Obama administration is linking the implementation of the nuclear deal to an end-use monitoring agreement for military supplies from America in a determined effort to arm-twist India into signing the controversial defence pact on Monday.

Philip J. Crowley, an assistant secretary of state who was specially designated by the administration to brief foreign correspondents here yesterday shortly before Hillary Clinton landed in Mumbai, said the end-use monitoring agreement “is part of the fulfilment of an important initiative that India and the US have signed in the area of nuclear co-operation”.

Crowley added: “I am sure that this will be (a) substantial area of discussion (between Clinton and the Indians) and the various leaders will reflect on the progress that is made in terms of both fulfilling the initiative and its various components.”

Crowley’s forthright assertion — that the defence agreement is a “component” of the nuclear deal — even as Indian and US officials are burning the midnight oil in New Delhi to ensure that there are no glitches in the American secretary of state’s highly choreographed trip to India is revealing on two counts.

One, this is the first time that any US official, either from the Bush era or an incumbent in the Obama team, has indicated that there was any understanding — such as buying American defence equipment — which facilitated the nuclear deal.

The US will not sell advanced military equipment unless India signs the end-use monitoring agreement that will allow Washington to inspect such equipment long after it has been bought.

Second, Crowley’s “hope” that “various (Indian) leaders will reflect on the progress that is made in terms of both fulfilling the (nuclear) initiative and its various components” is tantamount to a threat that progress on the nuclear deal will only go hand in hand with progress on other unpublicised understandings such as defence purchases from the US.

Crowley also left the onus of showing progress on these counts on India. “I will allow the officials in India to indicate that we have reached an agreement” on end-use monitoring.

It is clear from the assistant secretary’s statement that Clinton will expect New Delhi not to renege on what Washington sees as prior Indian commitments that allowed the passage of the nuclear deal here.

According to high-level sources in New Delhi, opinion has hardened among more sections of the political leadership against chipping away at the operational freedom of the defence forces by agreeing to future US inspections of military hardware bought by India.

As a result, top Indian officials who are continuing to discuss the end-use monitoring agreement with the Americans are now proposing that instead of signing the pact, Clinton and external affairs minister S.M. Krishna should merely announce that agreement has been reached on the issue between negotiators on both sides.

In the light of strong reservations among senior members of the cabinet on the agreement, the Prime Minister’s Office is now understood to have taken the view that the agreement should be formally approved by the cabinet committee on security, although such a step is not mandatory.

Similar stand-alone agreements that enabled India to buy the US naval ship Trenton and Boeing planes for VVIP transport did not go to the committee, although those agreements are identical to the one that the US wants to be signed on Monday.

US officials here are insisting that they have bent over backwards to accommodate Indian concerns on end-use inspections.

They said that in a significant departure from the standard US text, the Obama administration had encouraged India to choose the venues for American inspections, even agreeing to checks in third countries.

[AjayKK]

Clinton delivers unwanted tidings to New Delhi - M K Bhadrakumar

An excerpt

The US-India relationship is a bit like a marriage where one partner simply needs some space. For the US, the centrality of Pakistan in its regional policies in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf in the coming period is a compelling reality. Therefore, Clinton chose to give an interview to the Pakistani media (even ahead of any Indian media interaction) so that Islamabad did not need to fear the outcome of her India visit.

Yet, she proceeded to India first. The Indians are intrigued. They were hoping to present Clinton with a list of convincing reasons why the US and India should collaborate as partners in pressuring Pakistan to amend its record of breeding international terrorism and proliferating nuclear technology. But Clinton made it clear that Washington is pretty pleased with Pakistan's performance in the "war on terror" and that the Pakistani nuclear inventory was securely fastened, no matter Islamabad's past behavior - and that's all that mattered today.

[Gerard]

They said that in a significant departure from the standard US text, the Obama administration had encouraged India to choose the venues for American inspections, even agreeing to checks in third countries.

How often are these checks made?

[RajeshA]

Does EUMA have a termination clause like the Indo-US nuclear Deal? Will it be made public afterwards?

[NRao]

Philip J. Crowley, an assistant secretary of state who was specially designated by the administration to brief foreign correspondents here yesterday shortly before Hillary Clinton landed in Mumbai, said the end-use monitoring agreement “is part of the fulfilment of an important initiative that India and the US have signed in the area of nuclear co-operation”.

The US is using the EU agreement to get into Indian nuclear facilities. Simple.

This will override the IAEA mandate too!!!!

For sure.

This agreement is NOT to get to any F-18s or F-16 they sell to India. Or P-8 or C-130Js.

[NRao]

India may have to dump the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Well, back to the first square.

India needs to take her time - even if she is arm ywisted to sign - to buy anything American.

[Philip]

What do you get from a "Strategic partnership" with the US?
Analyse the two words.

"Strategic",as in meaning an "advantageous position".
"Partnership",as in a "close physical embrace".

The US already has a "strategic partnership" with rent-boy Pak.
Therefore it means that the US will be right "behind" us, buggering us in similar fashion as it is doing Pak!

[shravan]

Before the chance fades
C. Raja Mohan
Monday , Jul 20, 2009

In doing the capital’s political circuit today, Hillary Clinton enjoys a big advantage that none of her predecessors at the US state department have had. Arriving with the well-established reputation as a friend of India, Clinton will be among admirers in New Delhi.

Few politicians in the United States have invested in the India relationship as Clinton did before assuming her current office. When there were few takers for India in the first presidential term of her husband Bill Clinton, Hillary traveled to the subcontinent.

After her election as the senator from New York, Clinton founded the India caucus in the upper house of the US Congress. When most leading lights of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy establishment were rallying against the controversial Indo-US civil nuclear initiative during 2005-08, Clinton was unwavering in her support.

With those credentials, Clinton has had no problem dispelling New Delhi’s apprehensions that the Obama administration might turn its back on India to focus on ties with China and Pakistan.

There was even greater concern in New Delhi about President Barack Obama’s loud thinking on Jammu and Kashmir, which this newspaper drew attention a few days before he was elected president,

As he settled down in office, Obama made it clear that there was no question of meddling in Jammu and Kashmir and that he would build on the advances in Indo-US relations made during the Clinton and George W. Bush years.

In the last couple of weeks, Hillary Clinton has gone a step further. She has taken ownership of Washington’s ties with New Delhi, and has promised to mobilise the full weight of the US government in boosting the bilateral relationship to a higher orbit.

As they set about this ambitious task, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Secretary Clinton must salvage the Indo-US discourse on global issues from the persistent negativism in both countries.

The American liberals (see the dripping condescension of the The New York Times editorial on Saturday) and the Indian conservatives (who cannot imagine life without American pressure on trade, global warming and non-proliferation) seem convinced that Indo-US train wreck on global issues is unavoidable.

Manmohan Singh and Clinton know that these multilateral negotiations involve any number of actors with varying motives and goals. Coming as they do from messy democracies, the prime minister and the secretary are acutely aware that clinching deals at home will be far tougher than at Geneva and Vienna.

Selling emission cuts to American sceptics will be as hard as convincing India’s “per capita fundamentalists”. On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, New Delhi knows that the US nuclear weapons laboratories will oppose it as much as those in

India who never liked a nuclear treaty that they have seen. And need we mention the incessant contestation on trade politics in US and India?

One must be more than paranoid to believe that Clinton comes with a strong domestic consensus on the Doha round, global warming, and nuclear disarmament. For India, then, the question is not about resisting American pressure but of exploring together with the United States a way forward on pressing global challenges.

For more than more than six decades, the United States, as the world’s pre-eminent power, has organised and maintained the global order on trade and finance. Washington has also defined the rules for the management of our global commons.

We do know now that US cannot forever bear this burden unilaterally. As realists, Obama and Clinton are saying that the US needs other powers — old and new — to share the costs of producing collective goods and managing the global commons.

If a rising India does not seize this opportunity for leadership on global issues, America will have no choice but to turn to China. If India is short-sighted it will make the emergence of the “Group of Two” — or the Sino-American condominium — inevitable.

What the Obama administration has been looking for is a change of strategic direction on New Delhi’s part. In the last few days, the prime minister has indeed signaled that India is ready to take up its international responsibilities. The prime minister and the secretary must now order their bureaucracies to translate the notion of shared leadership on global issues into mutually acceptable terms.

Turning to the bilateral agenda, which in the end is far more consequential than the multilateral one, the two sides will hopefully clear much of the accumulated backlog. A whole host of mutually beneficial agreements had been held up either by political resistance in New Delhi and bureaucratic pettifogging in Washington.

Clearing the table of past agreements, Manmohan Singh and Clinton must be bold enough to begin an honest conversation on Pakistan. For far too long, the US has either lectured India on what it ought to do with Pakistan or ignored India’s genuine concerns on US-Pakistan relations in the name of de-hyphenation.

New Delhi, in turn, has swung wildly between objecting to Washington’s unsolicited advice and soliciting American support to restrain Pakistan’s pursuit of violent extremism.

As their security interests converge for the first time in the north-western parts of the subcontinent, the time has come for India and the United States to think and act together in helping Pakistan move towards political moderation, economic modernisation and regional integration.

If Washington and New Delhi recognise that neither of them has the power to unilaterally change Islamabad’s course, it should not be impossible for them to begin coordinating their policies towards Pakistan and Afghanistan and create the basis for a historic reconciliation in the subcontinent.

The writer is a professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore [email protected]

[RajeshA]

Before the chance fades

After her election as the senator from New York, Clinton founded the India caucus in the upper house of the US Congress. When most leading lights of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy establishment were rallying against the controversial Indo-US civil nuclear initiative during 2005-08, Clinton was unwavering in her support.

Clinton did not express any support to the Indo-US Nuclear Deal. It was considered the brain-child of Secretary Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary did not nothing to support it. Her only favor to India, was that she did not oppose. Thanks for that.

With those credentials, Clinton has had no problem dispelling New Delhi’s apprehensions that the Obama administration might turn its back on India to focus on ties with China and Pakistan.

Her charms doesn't work here either. We want Monica Lewinsky to convince us.

The American liberals (see the dripping condescension of the The New York Times editorial on Saturday) and the Indian conservatives (who cannot imagine life without American pressure on trade, global warming and non-proliferation) seem convinced that Indo-US train wreck on global issues is unavoidable.

Indian conservatives should simply look the other way, when trade, global warming and non-proliferation is being discussed.

Selling emission cuts to American sceptics will be as hard as convincing India’s “per capita fundamentalists”. On the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, New Delhi knows that the US nuclear weapons laboratories will oppose it as much as those in India who never liked a nuclear treaty that they have seen. And need we mention the incessant contestation on trade politics in US and India?

Those nuclear weapons laboratories have more nuclear tests to their credit than India. Nobody in India is being a "per capita fundamentalist" on nuclear tests, but what about "gross parity" at least. Minister Jairam Ramesh has given an admirable defense of India's environment policy! He did it without being a "per capita fundamentalist". CO2 Limits from India are not necessary, as long as India can show that India is doing everything possible to mitigate the effects.

If a rising India does not seize this opportunity for leadership on global issues, America will have no choice but to turn to China. If India is short-sighted it will make the emergence of the “Group of Two” — or the Sino-American condominium — inevitable.

And can China deliver on CO2 emissions from India? Can China sign the CTBT for India? Can China force down India's trade barriers? If China can, then Hillary is free to go to China, if she wants something from India!

As their security interests converge for the first time in the north-western parts of the subcontinent, the time has come for India and the United States to think and act together in helping Pakistan move towards political moderation, economic modernisation and regional integration.

Which interests converge in the north-western parts of the subcontinent? India and US's interest converge on Pakistan, if both agree in helping either Pakistan move towards South America, or towards nuke nudity, or at least to shut down terrorism directed towards India. Otherwise they don't agree.

[ramana]

The above CRM article is why I call him "maximum accomodationist". There is no US policy he doesnt like and wants India to submit to.

[SwamyG]

Thus spake the great Mrs.Clinton.

“If Hollywood and Bollywood were how we all lived our lives, that would surprise me,” Mrs. Clinton said. “People watching a Bollywood movie in some other part of Asia think everyone in India is beautiful. And they have dramatic lives, and happy endings.”

“And if you were to watch American TV and our movies,” she said with a twinkle in her eye, “you’d think we don’t wear clothes and we spend a lot of time fighting each other.”

[sanjaychoudhry]

The above CRM article is why I call him "maximum accomodationist". There is no US policy he doesnt like and wants India to submit to.

I have been reading his articles for a long time. He has been subverted by the Yanks.

[ramana]

Thus spake the great Mrs.Clinton.

“If Hollywood and Bollywood were how we all lived our lives, that would surprise me,” Mrs. Clinton said. “People watching a Bollywood movie in some other part of Asia think everyone in India is beautiful. And they have dramatic lives, and happy endings.”

“And if you were to watch American TV and our movies,” she said with a twinkle in her eye, “you’d think we don’t wear clothes and we spend a lot of time fighting each other.”

But it is true that everyone in India is beautiful and if not have inner beauty!

And the other thing is also true!

[shravan]

X-Posted
India, U.S. say agree nuclear sites, defence pact

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India and the United States on Monday said they had agreed on a defence pact that takes a big step toward the sale of sophisticated U.S. arms to India, and on which sites will be reserved for U.S. companies to build two nuclear power plants.

Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced both agreements at a joint press conference at the conclusion of Clinton's first trip to India as Washington's top diplomat.

[SwamyG]

Ramana gaaru: Her point is that we are not

[shravan]

India, US sign three agreements

NEW DELHI

India and the United States Monday reaffirmed their commitment to the bilateral civil nuclear deal, with India providing two sites for nuclear parks to be set up by American companies.
.
.
.

Clinton said that she "affirmed the Obama administration's strong commitment to completing all the remaining elements of our civil nuclear deal".

The statement would certainly clear India's apprehension that the statement by the G-8 in Italy that enrichment and nuclear reprocessing technology should not be passed on to non-signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, would pose an obstacle in the implementation of the civil nuclear deal.

"we have just completed a civil nuclear deal. If it done through proper channels and safeguarded, then it is appropriate," she asserted.

Clinton also said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had told her that sites for two nuclear parks by American companies have been "approved by the government".

"These parks will advance the aims of the US India civil nuclear agreement facilitating billions of dollars in US reactor exports and create jobs in both countries, as well as generate much needed energy for the Indian people," she said.

The US secretary hoped that India will soon implement a civil liability legislation to "enable our US companies to seize these important opportunities".

Earlier, US and India reached three agreements to help pave the way for increased parntership in defence, space and science and technology.

The agreements include one for end-user monitoring, which Clinton, said would lead to "greater defence cooperation". Besides, a technology safeguards agreement to help commercial partnerships in space and a science and technology deal were also finalised.

[Sanku]

India bows, lets US monitor high-tech defence purchases

[sum]

Great...

Now our men in uniform will eagerly await the day every year where the Amriki headmasters will come and inspect if they have been good boys.

[csharma]

So finally, EUM was signed after all. This is really weird. They force you to sign an agreement like that even if defence minister does not want to sign it. This along with the joint statement clearly shows the state of affairs as far as independent foreign policy is concerned.

Maybe it does not matter to people.

[NRao]

The King is dead, Long live the King/Queen.

[NRao]

They force you to sign an agreement like that even if defence minister does not want to sign it

MMS forced the MEA to sign. MoD was out of town. This is a PMO decision.

It will be fun to watch the US given a run around by MoD here on out.

[RajeshA]

MEA Website still doesn't have the Text of EUMA! If somebody finds the text please publish it here.

[ramana]

EUM makes sense only if US stuff is bought na?


Also where are the sites for the two plants and whats the seismicity of those two locations?

I know Hyd and Gujarat do have intra-plate quakes.