With eye on China, India to host trilateral talks with Japan, US this year; Japan does not fancy the Quadrilateral with Australia


New Delhi
29 June 2011

For Japan, three is not a crowd. Four maybe. While it agrees that a more robust Asian security architecture will be required if China's opaque military modernisation continues, for now it will be content with trilateral or three-way security dialogues involving India, Australia and the United States, without giving it the shape of a Quadrilateral or resurrecting notions of containing China. Currently, Japan has trilateral dialogues with the US and India; with the US and Australia; and with China and South Korea. India is the third country, after the US and Australia, with which Japan has the two-plus-two talks involving foreign and defence ministers. New Delhi is expected to host the inaugural India-US-Japan trilateral dialogue later this year. It will be conducted by officials, and not by foreign ministers as was mentioned in the April 8 press release issued by the ministry of external affairs after foreign secretary Nirupama Rao's talks in Tokyo. Besides discussing anti-piracy cooperation and maritime security, the talks could progressively extend to cover security and defence cooperation.

China's military rise has caused concerns in the region and beyond. Without naming China, Australian defence minister Stephen Smith recently said, "All we ask in terms of a growth of military capacity is that one is transparent as to its strategic intentions". That view is shared by Tokyo. "We keep asking the Chinese what is your intention
[but] unfortunately we have not received a convincing explanation," AKITAKA SAIKI, Japan's new ambassador to India, said Wednesday in an interaction at the Observer Research Foundation here. "While Japan has no intention to undermine good neighbourly relations with China, I hope China will be a little more sensitive to concerns expressed by its neighbours. Actions need to match words, that's my view," he observed. Mr Saiki cautioned that the future trajectory of trilateral talks would depend on Beijing's attitude.

The current Japanese sentiment stands in contrast to the churning in Australia, which has instituted a Defence Force Posture Review for addressing issues such as "the growth of military power projection capabilities of countries in the Asia Pacific" -- an indirect reference to China's reach and influence. In a recent interaction with this newspaper, Michael Auslin from the US-based American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said that Australia, not post-tsunami Japan, could be the lead partner in the Quadrilateral. Dr John Lee from the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, in turn, cited the increasing possibility of Australia lifting the ban on uranium sale to India to suggest that the perception of Australia drifting towards China was not true.

The Quadrilateral was an initiative of Shinzo Abe, who was the Japanese premier from September 2006 to September 2007. On September 4, 2007, the navies of India, Japan, the US, Australia and Singapore conducted joint naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal. However, later that year, Australia's then newly elected prime minister and current foreign minister Kevin Rudd unilaterally withdrew from the Quadrilateral Initiative. The strategic pact has remained stillborn ever since. It suffered another setback after Abe's Liberal Democratic Party lost power to the Democratic Party in 2009. India did not show any particular interest, either. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Beijing in January 2008 that India was "not part of any so-called 'contain China' effort".

NSG tightens rules, but US reassures India


New Delhi
24 June 2011

Access to sensitive nuclear technologies used for the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel just got tougher, with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approving new guidelines to limit their transfers only to the countries complying with their non-proliferation obligations and that meet agreed standards for nuclear safeguards, safety and security.

On the face of it, the three non-NPT signatories of India, Pakistan and Israel could be affected by the amendments, but, equally, other countries of concern could be the targets, too. However, the US department of state has clarified that the new restrictions should not be construed as detracting from the "unique impact and importance" of the US-India nuclear deal or diluting the US' commitment to full civil nuclear cooperation with India.

Simply put, the new guidelines would not impinge or adversely affect the "clean" NSG exception given to India in September 2008 or restrict India's access to enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies. Also, India remains on course for becoming the 47th member of the nuclear cartel, which was formed in 1974 in response to the nuclear test by India earlier that year.

A US state department press release said, "The NSG's NPT references, including those in the ENR guidelines, in no way detract from the exception granted to India by NSG members in 2008 and in no way reflect upon India's non-proliferation record." It also noted that "efforts in the NSG to strengthen controls on the transfers of ENR areconsistent with long-standing US policy that pre-dates the civil nuclear agreement [with India] and have been reaffirmed on an annual basis by the G-8 for years."

Further, it iterated the US' support for India's membership of the NSG and three other export control regimes -- the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Missile Technology Control Regime -- in a phased manner. The US was understood to have circulated a note on India's membership of the NSG, proposing in it that signing on to the NPT need not be a mandatory criterion. India recognises that becoming an NSG member will take time because the group operates by consensus, and all members, China included, need to unanimously make a decision.

On the eve of the NSG's meeting, India had voiced deep reservations about a move by the cartel to withhold the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to the non-NPT signatories. It had contended that doing so would dilute the import or the message of the exemption granted to India in 2008. Recently, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had discussed this, and other matters, with Ellen Tauscher, the US under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, in Vienna. Ms Rao had also impressed upon her American interlocutor that India's membership of the four export control regimes should be a package deal.

Protocol least of India's worries, open to hosting Hina Rabbani Khar for talks with SM Krishna in July


Hina Rabbani Khar
* 34-year-old young politician
* went to the University of Massachusetts
* loves trekking

Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna
* 79-year-old veteran politician
* went to Southern Methodist University and George Washington Univ. Law School
* loves tennis



New Delhi
19 June 2011

India would not mind setting aside protocol to host Hina Rabbani Khar, the 34-year-old minister of state for foreign affairs of Pakistan, for talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna (79) in July.

Ms Khar assumed the position on February 1 this year and she has been heading the foreign ministry from February 13 onwards, two days after Shah Mehmood Qureshi was dropped as Pakistan's foreign minister.

A government source recalled that India had deputed Khurshed Alam Khan, a minister of state of external affairs, to travel to Islamabad in 1986 for talks with Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, the then foreign minister of Pakistan.

However, if certain Pakistani media reports are anything to go by, Ms Khar could be elevated to Cabinet rank in the coming weeks. In contrast, ironically, is the speculation in a section of the Indian media about whether Mr Krishna would retain the portfolio after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reshuffles his Cabinet soon.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has iterated that it will be seeking a satisfactory closure of the November 26, 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai when foreign secretary Nirupama Rao travels to Islamabad for talks with her Pakistani counterpart on June 23 and 24.

It described the foreign secretaries' talks as a process, not an event in itself, and as a means to reduce the trust deficit ahead of an eventual resolution of the outstanding issues dogging the two nations.

The cabinet committee on security met on Thursday to approve the scope and agenda of Ms Rao's meeting in Islamabad. Similarly, the Pakistani government is expected to firm up its agenda for the talks on Monday.

The foreign secretaries will discuss, among other issues, peace and security, including confidence building measures; Jammu and Kashmir; and promotion of friendly exchanges.

New Delhi has indicated that the talks would cover all issues of mutual concern and that Ms Rao can be expected to raise issues, including, but not limited to, the continuing threat posed by terrorism.

The Indian assertion came the day after the Pakistani foreign ministry's spokeswoman said that terrorism would not be a part of the agenda because matters relating to terrorism had already been discussed by the home secretaries.

SM Krishna seeks a meeting with Suu Kyi, but prospects dim

New Delhi
19 June 2011

External affairs minister SM Krishna has sought a meeting with Burmese pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, but New Delhi would not confirm Sunday whether its request has been accepted. Mr Krishna, accompanied by foreign secretary Nirupama Rao and other officials, will visit Burma on June 20 and 21. The minister last visited Burma in December 2009.

The uncertainty about a possible meeting with Ms Suu Kyi was attributed to the terms of an agreement she was understood to have reached with the Burmese military regime prior to her release from house arrest in November 2010, one of which was that she would not meet foreign government leaders. If the Krishna-Suu Kyi meeting does take place, it will be the first high-level contact with the Burmese opposition leader in over two decades.

A government source said Mr Krishna could be expected to discuss issues such as security, connectivity, and infrastructure projects in what will be the first visit to Burma by an Indian minister after the military junta handed over power on March 30 this year to a nominally civilian government. Specifically, the source said, New Delhi would be keen to understand the new Burmese government's priorities and outlook.

Over the past few months foreign governments and organisations have reached out to Burma by sending special envoys or other officials. A European Union delegation was expected to visit Burma at around the same time as the Indian delegation. United States Republican senator John McCain visited Burma in the first week of June, and United
Nations secretary general's special envoy Vijay Nambiar and US deputy assistant secretary of state Joseph Yun were there in May.

President Thein Sein of Burma visited China in May, and it is likely that he would visit New Delhi at the invitation of the Indian government. Than Shwe was the last Burmese leader to visit India in July 2010.

Meanwhile, Ms Suu Kyi celebrated her birthday Sunday in freedom for the first time in many years. In a video message that was screened at a function organised by Burmese democracy activists in New Delhi Sunday evening, Ms Suu Kyi urged Indians to help restore human rights and democracy in Burma.

India voices reservation on NSG move to deny transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies


New Delhi
19 June 2011

India has voiced deep reservations about a move by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to withhold the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technology (or ENR) to non-NPT signatories such as India. New Delhi has contended that doing so would dilute the import or the message of the exemption granted to India in September 2008.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao was understood to have discussed this, and other matters, with Ellen Tauscher, United States under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs in Vienna last week. Ms Rao also met Yukiya Amano, the director-general of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

A government source said that India's quest for the membership of multilateral export control organisations or regimes, such as the NSG, the Australia Group (to prevent the spread of chemical and biological weapons), the Wassenaar Arrangement (for dual-use goods and technologies), and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), figured in those discussions.

India and the US do not agree on everything, the source pointed out, indicating that certain issues required further negotiations. Simultaneously, India was reaching out to the other NSG members, including the NSG Troika comprising New Zealand, Hungary and the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has urged the international community to jointly combat piracy in the Indian Ocean region. At least 550 persons, including 39 Indian nationals, were still being held hostage by Somali pirates. There have been 165 incidents, including 45 hijackings, this year.

It maintained that it could not provide security to every single sailor or pay ransom to secure their release. "If we pay ransom for one, then all Indian soldiers will become sitting ducks for pirates as they will know that government will pay," a source said.

India says it has not felt the need for a water pact with China


New Delhi
16 June 2011

India has not felt the need for a bilateral river waters sharing agreement with China similar to the Indus waters treaty with Pakistan, a government source said, implying that the present arrangement is adequate.

The response should be seen in the context of a sentiment voiced in quasi-official circles that a formal pact with China would not only serve the interests of water security by codifying the rights, responsibilities and obligations of the parties concerned, but also allay the fears of the people living in India's north-eastern states if China indiscriminately built hydro-electric projects on its side of the Brahmaputra.

Amplifying New Delhi's position, the source said that India and China have established an expert-level mechanism to discuss water issues, which meets annually. It comprises officials from the Indian ministries of water resources and external affairs, and their Chinese counterparts. The fifth meeting of this mechanism concluded in Beijing in April this year. Also, for the last nearly three years, the Chinese side has been sharing data of three rivers, including Brahmaputra, twice a day with India, between June and September
of every year.

It was pointed out that the average annual flow at the point the Brahmaputra enters Bangladesh is larger than at the point it enters the Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh, which implied that there is ample scope for Arunachal Pradesh and Assam to "harness and utilise the waters of the Brahmaputra", as the ministry of external affairs (MEA) said in its June 14 statement. Water is a state subject in India.

The source went on to assert that the basis for New Delhi's assertion, that the dam being built at Zangmu in Tibet is a run of the river hydro-electric project which does not store water, and, therefore, will not adversely impact the downstream areas in India, is high-calibre Indian satellite imagery. Incidentally, ascertaining facts from indigenous sources indicates that India has graduated from a position of relying merely on Chinese assurances to making determinations on its own.

Pressure grows on Australia to lift ban on sale of uranium to India, Labour party split


John Lee

New Delhi
June 15

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh prepares to visit Australia in October this year, an Australian foreign policy analyst and the deputy leader of the Opposition in the Australian parliament, alike, have argued that the Labour Government's refusal to sell uranium to India cannot be sustained for long.

In an interview to this newspaper in New Delhi, Dr John Lee of the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney said, "I don't think anyone doubts that Australia will eventually sell uranium to India. I think it's a matter of working through the Australian political process such that the focus is more on the benefits of selling uranium to India as opposed to the strict interpretation of our commitments to the non-proliferation treaty."

Julie Bishop, deputy leader of the Opposition, has reasoned that "the hypocrisy of this decision [not selling uranium to India] is even more glaring in the middle of a debate in Australia about a carbon tax designed to reduce greenhouse emissions in this country, while Labour is refusing to supply the fuel that India needs to reduce its emissions."

Ms Bishop, who recently visited India, is also the deputy leader of the Liberal party and the shadow minister of foreign affairs. Her party had agreed in principle to allow uranium exports to India when John Howard was prime minister, but Howard's successor, Kevin Rudd, overturned the decision after the Labour party came to power in 2007.

In a signed piece published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on Wednesday, Ms Bishop wrote, "Labour's ideological games to satisfy domestic interest groups should not be allowed to impact on our relationship with this valuable and strategic partner."

"It is difficult for Australia to build closer relations with this important democracy to our north-west when this ban clearly implies that Labour is of the view that India cannot be trusted with Australian uranium, despite its strong record of non-proliferation," Ms Bishop noted.

The current Labour government headed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard has continued her party's policy of not selling uranium to a non-NPT signatory such as India. However, as Dr Lee pointed out, India can draw hope from the fact that the Labour party is "genuinely split" on the issue.

"There are strong advocates of selling uranium to India who are in Cabinet positions. The advocates of not selling uranium to India are in more minor positions but they hold significant influence within the party itself," Dr Lee said, adding that when India's rise will begin to excite the Australian population, it will offer "more political incentives" for the Labour party to actually sell uranium to India.

Peter Burleigh returns as interim US ambassador to India

New Delhi
13 June 2011

Albert Peter Burleigh is expected to succeed Tim Roemer as the interim ambassador of the United States to India.

Burleigh (69) is no stranger to India, having temporarily served as charge d'affaires at the US embassy in New Delhi from April to July 2009, after David Mulford completed his tenure as ambassador here and before Tim Roemer took up his current position.

Roemer resigned on April 28, citing personal, professional and family considerations. He is expected to leave India by the end of June.

Burleigh is expected to arrive in New Delhi in the last week of this month and assume temporary charge till the US Government has nominated him or another individual as the US ambassador to India in succession to Roemer and the US Senate has confirmed the nomination.

Burleigh served as the US deputy representative to the United Nations from August 1997 to December 1999. Immediately prior to that, he served as the US ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives between 1995 and 1997.

Born on 7 March 1942, Burleigh joined the US foreign service in 1967, after spending a year as a Fulbright scholar in Nepal. He served in the Peace Corps in Nepal between 1963 and 1965, doing community development work in that country.

In his long career Burleigh served in the US embassies in Nepal and India, too.

Burleigh is a consultant for the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in Washington. Since 2006, he has been a consultant to the Carter Centre in Atlanta. In March 2007 he became a director of the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust. He is fluent in Bengali, Hindi, Nepali, and Sinhalese.

After the 2006 vote against Iran, India abstains on Syria, but questions remain







(L) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and, on the right, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano


New Delhi
10 June 2011

India abstained in Thursday's (9 June 2011) vote in the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), which decided to report Syria to the United Nations security
council (UNSC) over its alleged covert nuclear programme.

The 35-member board of governors of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog decided by
a 17-to-six vote, with 11 abstentions, to refer Syria to the UNSC for building an
undeclared nuclear reactor at a site in Dair Alzour (which was unilaterally destroyed by
Israel in 2007), for not allowing the IAEA to carry out investigations, and for not adhering
to its safeguards agreements.

The last time the IAEA reported a member-state to the UNSC was Iran in February 2006.
India's votes against Iran had been widely criticised at home, but Thursday's abstention
did not go unchallenged either.

A section of the official circles described India's decision to abstain, and to not cast a 'no
vote' along with Russia and the others, as being dictated by a desire to keep the US and
Israel in good humour. It felt that the IAEA vote was meant to bully President Bashar al-
Assad of Syria into submission and to set in motion a process to effect a regime change
(similar to Libya) in order to disrupt the Syria-Iran axis.

However, New Delhi defended itself by maintaining that states were required to comply
with safeguards obligations and it has consistently been against clandestine
proliferation. At the same time, it pointed out, scope for dialogue should be fully utilised.

The IAEA's referral of Syria to the UNSC should be seen in the context of the attempts by
the West to push for a UNSC resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on protesters.
With Russia indicating that it might veto any such UNSC resolution against Syria, New
Delhi was of the opinion that putting it to vote in the 15-member UNSC, of which India is a
non-permanent member, would be pointless.

In Thursday's vote, 17 countries voted for reporting Syria to the UNSC. They were: the
US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Germany, Italy, Japan, South
Korea, Australia, Belgium, Cameron, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, and the UAE.
Six countries voted against the motion: China, Russia, Pakistan, Ecuador, Venezuela
and Azerbaijan. India and 10 other countries abstained, which included Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, South Africa, Peru, Jordan, Kenya, Niger, Tunisia, and Ukraine. Mongolia was absent from the vote.

Iran spoils maiden flight of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's new plane


New Delhi
31 May 2011

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to India made headlines even before her aircraft landed in New Delhi Tuesday morning. Iran first refused permission to the Airbus A-340 "Konrad Adenauer", Germany's equivalent of the US' Air Force One, for flying over its airspace but later relented, delaying her arrival in New Delhi by two hours.

She more than made up for the avoidable distraction by immediately plunging headlong into the talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in which she reaffirmed Germany's 10-year-old strategic partnership with India; inked four pacts to expand bilateral cooperation in areas such as vocational education and training, science and technology, and research; and exchanged views on a wide swath of issues such as trade, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and reform of the United Nations security council (UNSC), which Germany and India are spearheading along with Brazil and Japan.

While Prime Minister Singh was "in agreement" with Ms Merkel on the need for UNSC reforms and he shared similar views about regional peace and security, some divergences were discernible in their positions on issues such as the way forward in Libya, whether a non-European should head the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and nuclear energy.

Ms Merkel, whose government announced plans Monday to shut down all nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022, wants the focus to shift to renewable sources of energy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster. For his part, Prime Minister Singh insisted that making use of nuclear energy, together with maximum possible emphasis on renewables, was a combination India needed if it was to meet its emission targets.

However, the differences did not dissuade Ms Merkel from offering to partner with India in nuclear safety and green energy. Defence and security dialogue was progressing satisfactorily, too. Indian counter-terrorism officials were expected to meet with their German counterparts in September to discuss operational matters, including, but not limited to, equipment and technologies. Also, external affairs minister SM Krishna would participate in the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December.

From Germany's perspective, the contract for the sale of multi-role aircraft to the Indian air force will be of considerable significance given that the Eurofighter Typhoon is one of two aircraft on New Delhi's shortlist. Speaking at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Singh, Ms Merkel said, "With the Eurofighter we have made good proposals and want to intensify our relationship with India. The Eurofighter is the best product on offer".

Incidentally, the diplomatic standoff between Iran and Germany over denial of permission to the "Konrad Adenauer", named after post-war Germany's first chancellor, coincided with the visit here by an Iranian delegation for resolving the issue of oil payments. India is seeking an alternative mechanism for making payments for the imports of crude oil from Iran after Germany discontinued the practice of routing the payments through the Hamburg-based Europaisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (or EIH Bank.)

Iran's relations with Germany, which along with the five permanent UNSC members (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) had held negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme, has deteriorated of late. Recently the European Union and the United States imposed further sanctions on Iran.

The Iranian ambassador in Berlin was called to the German foreign ministry to explain the snub. Iran is since understood to have blamed "technical [and] organisational events", according to a media report, for the lapse due to which Ms Merkel's aircraft was forced to circle over Turkey for a couple of hours.

Ms Merkel is the second European head of government to have visited India on a refurbished aircraft. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France had used a new official Airbus plane, dubbed Air Sarko One, for his December 2010 visit here, although unlike Ms Merkel, he had already flown on it on its maiden flight to South Korea for the G-8 summit in November.

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'


The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all likeminded countries as it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says MARK SOFER, Israel's outgoing ambassador in New Delhi, as he prepares to leave India soon after spending four years here. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks of how the “dynamic“ relationship between the two countries “is now going places“. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel-India relations today, and what are some of the high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but clearly, it has an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral civilian trade has reached $5 billion. We are working on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India-Israel relations, and, hopefully around that time we will be able to conclude the (FTA) negotiations. Some experts estimate that bilateral civilian trade will triple in the next three or four years, so we are talking $15 billion worth of civilian trade. And the trade is finely balanced in terms of imports and exports, and it will include such things as investment, services, and goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is already up and running in Karnal, Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in Haryana; and a third probably will be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at Tamil Nadu. I mean — the sky is the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation process for an MoU (memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc.

So, basically, in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode. It didn’t start with me and it won’t end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a relationship that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has been the opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is dependent on farming. At the end of the day, embassies and countries interact to better the lives of their peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the Indian economy and social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the greatest pleasure. There is nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers from far and wide coming to look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their own smallholdings. We all like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is these things, the nitty-gritty, that make a term of duty the beauty that it is.

If you ask me, it has been the most wonderful four years of my life working with the Indian government and people on not just issues related to West Asia but related to the welfare of people, such as water, alternative energy, agriculture, technology and industry. I think that there is no doubt in my mind that the low point of my stay here was the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those Indians that were killed, but the Jewish people also were specifically targeted in that atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it mean the end of terrorism? Of course it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of the woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new attacks. The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded countries. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: US President Barack Obama’s speeches on the West Asia peace process have not gone down well with the Israeli government. How do you see the Israel-Palestine peace process going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family. That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over-dramatise it. If someone is trying to find fissures (between the United States and Israel), it will be very hard to find them, but that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a crossroads. We do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the negotiating table. There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start doing that, then we are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they actually have taken off in any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding in all honesty why all of a sudden the Palestinian Authority has placed this condition or that condition. Second, this agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia’s Al Qaeda. It is an extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel and is anti-Semitic by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of the international community that it accept Israel’s existence, that it accept previous agreements reached between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I must stress that these are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the Quartet, by the international community, on Hamas, and they have not met them. We do see in Mahmoud Abbas a serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) an institution with which we can achieve peace, but we do not at this stage at all (visualise) the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians’ move to seek a vote in the United Nations recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don’t have dozens of countries that will support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything [that is done] in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that far apart: we both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments following the popular uprisings in Israel’s neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think there will be positive spinoffs as well.

Q: The US and the European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would you describe the current thinking in Israel on Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in order to carry out the destruction of the world’s only Jewish country. Why should we sit idly by when this is happening? And we won’t. The Jewish people have suffered throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill. When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when (Iran talks about) killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take, and watch idly as it does this.

Germany joins chorus of concern about Pakistan

New Delhi
27 May 2011

Germany added its voice Friday to the chorus of concern over Pakistan's
attitude towards terrorism by asking it to come clean on the extent of its links with
terrorist groups.

Talking to journalists ahead of Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to India next week,
Germany's ambassador Thomas Matussek said there were worries about possible
collaboration of parts of Pakistan's security apparatus with terrorists.

In Islamabad, visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton asked Pakistan to take
decisive steps against terrorists operating from its soil. She said Osama bin Laden is
dead but Al Qaeda and its syndicate of terror remain a serious threat to world peace.

Mr Matussek said defence and security dialogue will be a part of what Germany calls
"inter-governmental consultations" with India. It will be the first of its kind with a non-
European country, with the exception of Israel.

The German ministers of foreign affairs, defence, transport, education, trade, and
environment, will join Ms Merkel in delegation-level talks and hold separate meetings
with their Indian counterparts.

Other bilateral issues such as trade, science and technology, vocational training, and
skills development, and regional and global issues such as Afghanistan, Libya, United
Nations security council (UNSC) reform, can be expected to be an integral part of the
discussions.

Germany and India are members of the Group of Four (G-4), along with Brazil and Japan,
which are jointly pushing for permanent UNSC seats.

External affairs minister SM Krishna was expected to participate in a conference on
Afghanistan to be held in Bonn on December 5.

Mr Matussek said the weakening of Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden's death and the
reinforced political process provided a realistic chance for the international efforts in
Afghanistan to succeed.