REMOVE THE BLINKERS

This article was published by Asia Times Online (www.atimes.com) on 17 October 2013 under the headline: "Singh takes a lonely road on Pakistan". Here is the link to it.


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in
New York on 29 September 2013 (Pictures courtesy: www.pmindia.nic.in)

New Delhi
16 October 2013

The Prime Minister of India met with his Pakistan counterpart on the margins of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 29 September 2013, defying public sentiment and in spite of an overwhelming body of evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in allowing its territory to be used for mounting terrorist attacks against India and Indian interests, at home and abroad alike. The discourse leading up to the meeting was dominated by whether the talks should at all be held in the immediate backdrop of the 26 September 2013 twin terror attacks in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in which Indian soldiers, police personnel and civilians were killed. It was not an isolated incident: In January this year an Indian soldier was beheaded at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan; in August five more Indian soldiers were killed; and, in between, several more such killings and infiltrations were reported. As it became known later, the Indian Army was engaged in an operation to repulse an attempt from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) to push a tranche of infiltrators across the Line of Control even as the two premiers shook hands and posed for the cameras. It took the army a fortnight to successfully conclude the anti-infiltration operation. If the government dithered on calling Pakistan’s bluff, the army chief made it eminently clear to anyone who would care to listen that it is impossible for terrorists to carry out any activity along the LoC without the knowledge of the Pakistani Army.

By the Indian government’s own admission, the expectations from the New York talks had to be toned down given the terror arm which is still active in the Indian subcontinent. And as it predictably turned out, there was not much to show by way of outcomes except for the two sides deciding to task their respective Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMOs) to meet for suggesting effective means to restore the ceasefire. Even that looks remote now. The two DGMOs last met in 1999 although they speak fairly regularly. The New York meeting could at best be described as a photo-op. If anything, it once again reaffirmed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s, and by extension his government’s, adamantly consistent but questionable position on talks with Pakistan. After the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, too, he had similarly disregarded public opinion to first meet with the then President of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, and later with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan at the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit. It was at Sharm-el-Sheikh that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team agreed to a joint statement with Pakistan that said: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue Process and these should not be bracketed”. Also, in another first, Balochistan was allowed to creep into the text of an India - Pakistan joint statement. Pakistan has since conveniently used the bogey of Indian involvement in stirring up trouble in Balochistan as a stock response to India’s assertions of a Pakistani hand in fomenting unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

All of which begs the question: Talks to what end, and at what cost? Is the life of an Indian – be it a soldier or a civilian — so cheap that talks with Pakistan should continue at any cost and in spite of a spate of terrorist attacks, as evidenced most recently in the twin terror attacks in the Samba and Kathua sectors of Jammu and Kashmir? How many more brave Indian soldiers should be killed in cowardly terrorist attacks before the decision-making apparatuses of the government proactively seek out the military’s views? How many more families should lose their loved ones at the hands of the terrorists and their masters outside our borders before the government of the day begins to pay heed to the sentiments of the common man whom it claims to represent? Why are no visible attempts being made to restore the delicate civil-military balance and to uphold the dignity and morale of the soldier? Instead, what we are witnessing today is a government that is playing with fire and it needs to stop now. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid has since clarified that while the two Prime Ministers met in New York the stage has not been reached where the two sides have indicated any dates, timeline or perspective on resuming the dialogue. And with a post-2014 Afghanistan looming large on the horizon it is anyone’s guess as to how much time and effort Pakistan, given its proclivities, will be willing to spare and/or invest in preserving the incremental peace dividends and insulating the bilateral relationship from external influences.



Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of
Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in New York on 29 September 2013. Also seen in the picture
(on the right) are External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, National Security
Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh

What the discerning stakeholders in India today need be understand is that this government’s blind faith in dialogue with Pakistan has not disproved those who have little or no faith in talks under the present circumstances. The history of India – Pakistan bilateral engagement over the past decade and more is replete with an unending series of terrorist attacks interspersed with peace talks, an overwhelming majority of which were held in third countries on the margins of multilateral summits. The New York meeting is but one in a long list of bilateral engagements starting with the 2006 NAM summit at Havana in Cuba, the 2008 Asia –Europe Meeting (ASEM) at Beijing in China, the 2008 United Nations General Assembly session in New York, the 2009 SCO summit at Yekaterinburg in Russia, the 2009 NAM summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the 2010 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit at Thimphu in Bhutan. Add to it former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit to New Delhi in 2005 and former Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Mohali in 2011 for watching cricket or the private visits by Pakistani heads of state/government to Ajmer and you have a veritably uninterrupted dialogue that can be traced further back to Lahore, 1999; Agra, 2001; and Islamabad, 2004. Importantly, these bilateral engagements have survived multiple terrorist attacks and conflicts dating back to Kargil and Kandahar in 1999, Parliament in 2001, Mumbai train bombings of 2006 and the 26/11 terrorist attacks again in Mumbai, in 2008. But what has come of the talks so far? Are we any closer to a breakthrough than we were before? Have terrorist attacks diminished appreciably? Unfortunately, after every terrorist attack the government of the day mouths platitudes and employs boilerplate language such as ‘It cannot be business as usual’ or ‘Patience is not inexhaustible’ only to go back on them at the first available opportunity! This government has tied itself in knots over its Pakistan policy but it has only itself to blame for it. Its inability to think out of the box has exposed its bankruptcy of ideas on how to deal with an increasingly intransigent neighbour. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal quest for a lasting legacy insofar as Pakistan is concerned has only further compounded an already intractable conundrum.

The government needs to remove its blinkers and begin to appreciate that terrorism and talks cannot go hand in hand. It is imperative that the government shows zero tolerance to terrorism, takes strong steps to prevent terror attacks and imposes costs on the perpetrators of terrorism. Most importantly, the government must heed public opinion. The time has come for the government to start calling Pakistan’s bluff, to act firmly and decisively and if that involves putting a moratorium on future talks with Pakistan at the highest level, “so be it.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has used this specific language before, albeit to a domestic audience in the run up to the India – United States nuclear cooperation agreement in his first term in office when the Left parties parted ways with the UPA; there is no reason why in the instant context Pakistan cannot be told “So be it”; that India will be free to pursue its course of action if Pakistan does not intend to reciprocate peace overtures; and that consequences will follow if it does not give satisfaction to India on what India considers to be its core interests. Saying no to talks now is not the same as saying no to talks ever and it certainly need not necessarily mean or come to represent an escalation of tensions. A range of other equally effective options is available to the government of the day to execute its Pakistan policy and these must be explored. Above all, the government must forge the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward for a détente with Pakistan.

Kudankulam stalemate over, PM to discuss N-safety at Korea summit next week

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

Echoes of Kudankulam would be felt in distant Seoul next week when heads of state or

government from about 50 countries gather in the South Korean capital for the second

edition of the nuclear safety summit.

On their agenda will not only be nuclear safety but also the future of nuclear as an

energy source, post the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.

While there is a strong popular sentiment against nuclear energy in Japan and a host of

other Asian nations, South Korea and India stand out as an exception where

governments have signalled their intention to pursue the nuclear power path.

The March 26-27 summit, which will be attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,

Chinese President Hu Jintao and US President Barack Obama, among others, can be

expected to discuss issues such as guidelines for nuclear safety.

The US hosted the inaugural nuclear safety summit in 2010.

A week before Dr Singh leaves for Seoul, Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa ended

the eight-month-long uncertainty over the future of the Kudankulam nuclear power project

by giving her go ahead.

Work at the site had been affected by the protests by locals spearheaded by a People's

Movement Against Nuclear Energy, which feared a Fukushima-like catastrophe in

Kudankulam.

The decision to restart work at Kudankulam coincides with China's decision to resume

construction of nuclear power plants. China currently has 13 nuclear power plants with

varied capacities.

China suspended approving new nuclear power projects and launched nationwide safety

inspections at nuclear power stations and facilities in operation and under construction

over safety concerns after the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

According to state-run Beijing Review, China at present has approved 43 nuclear power

plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million KW. These plants are located in 16

provinces, including eight in inland areas.

Incidentally, South Korea is one country where Prime Minister should find himself at

ease. In a poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org a few years ago, Dr Singh was voted

among the most popular "regional" leaders in South Korea with 47 per cent South Korean

nationals saying they trusted him more than others.

In the 20-country poll, 30 per cent of Chinese leaned positively towards Dr Singh

although the Chinese views of him had become more negative as compared to the

previous poll. He also enjoyed an overwhelming support (83 per cent) among Indians.

In contrast, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari fared poorly on the confidence index. Only

34 per cent of the Pakistanis had confidence in him.

BJP's NDA partners pitch for minus-Modi formula for next parliamentary election in order to bait new allies

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on the cover of the
26 March 2012 issue of the Time magazine of the U.S.

Hyderabad

17 March 2012

Making it to the cover of Time magazine may prompt two-time Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's followers to believe that he has it in him to lead India, but BJP's allies seem to think otherwise.

These parties seem to be making up their mind that the NDA's electoral prospects in the next parliamentary election, whenever it is called, would be better served without Modi in the lead. Some of them have suggested sotto-voce that the NDA could hope to become more acceptable to voters and allies -- present and potential -- alike, if the likes of a Narendra Modi or even an LK Advani are not projected as shadow premiers. They are calling it a minus formula, similar to the minus-one or minus-two formulae seen in the politics of neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan.

For one, the JD(U), which is the second largest constituent of the NDA, sees Modi as a liability and it does not fancy the idea of going to polls with him at the helm. More so, when JD(U) leader and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar himself is seen as a potential choice for prime minister. What goes in Nitish's favour, as compared to Modi, is the degree of acceptability towards him among non-BJP, non-Congress political parties, some of whom are coming together to constitute what is loosely being called a third or federal front comprising regional parties such as the Trinamul in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, and, now, SP in Uttar Pradesh, where Mulayam Singh Yadav's party has emerged the winner of the recently concluded Assembly election.

The third front is not without problems or internal contradictions, though. Complicating matters for this motley group is that there are many potential contenders for prime minister, including, but not limited to, Mamata Banerjee and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Already, Samajwadi Party sources have indicated that their next goal after getting a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is to make "Netaji", as Mulayam is called in his party, the prime minister. The SP has indicated its support to the UPA in the event of the Trinamul pulling out of the alliance and there it is speculated that the Congress could offer Mulayam a Cabinet berth to return the favour.

From the Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru edition

From the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad edition

For its part, the Trinamul would not mind an early election because it is better placed than its rivals after winning the last Assembly election. However, if Congress veteran and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is to be believed, Mamata has a huge challenge ahead of her simply because she is not fluent in Hindi. "If you don't know Hindi, you cannot be a prime minister. There are certain skills that are required for certain work. That is why Narasimha Rao became a good prime minister", Mr Mukherjee had famously remarked in 2009 when asked whether he was in contention for the top job. The language handicap notwithstanding, Mamata's Trinamul could emerge as the pivot of this front and a potential kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament, where no party or alliance has absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the question asked about Modi has been used for Rahul Gandhi, too. A section of the Congress party is in favour of seeing the Gandhi scion succeed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before the next parliamentary election, if only to enthuse party cadres and voters alike, but Congress President Sonia Gandhi has dismissed the possibility for now. Like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Dr Singh is faced with a career dilemma: they would want to know when is a good time to retire. Dr Singh's anxiety is compounded by the fact that for one who invested a large quantum of political capital in the UPA-1 on seeing the India-US nuclear deal through, even at the cost of risking his own government, he is today having to explain why nuclear projects in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal have not taken off. Also, big-ticket reform measures such as entry of FDI of up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail, or in insurance sector, has been put on hold for want of consensus among the UPA allies.

Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to visit Iran despite regional tensions

Hyderabad

12 March 2012

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-anticipated visit to Iran this year can be expected to serve the dual purpose of maintaining India's ties with Iran on an even keel and kickstarting peace talks with Pakistan.

Tehran will host the 16th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in September.

His visit to the Iranian capital will, literally, be couched in nonalignment, coming as it will in the midst of a brewing crisis in West Asia, between Iran and Israel, and between the Shiite and Sunni blocs represented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively.

It will follow the visits by external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel, and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia. Also, it will be the first visit by an Indian premier to Iran in over a decade, after Atal Bihari Vajpayee's in 2001.

Prime Minister Singh's proposed visit to Tehran is being described as a manifestation of India's balanced and equitable relationships with various protagonists in the region. A broad-based relationship with the region is a welcome shift in policy, particularly after the narrow-minded pursuit of interests in the run-up to the signing of the India-US nuclear deal.

India and Pakistan are among the 120 members of the NAM. Besides interacting with the host, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prime Minister Singh is likely to re-engage his Pakistan counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the margins of the summit.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan last met in November 2011 on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in the Maldives. Incidentally, it was on the margins of the last NAM summit, hosted by Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009, that prime ministers Singh and Gilani agreed to insulate the peace talks from "action on terrorism".

Prime Minister Singh will be hoping that peace with Pakistan will be his legacy, as India heads for elections in 2014. The Singh-Gilani talks will be preceded by Mr Krishna's visit to Islamabad.

The Asian Age, New Delhi

Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru

Japan may suspend N-talks with India, puts Manmohan Singh's ambitious nuclear programme in jeopardy

New Delhi

16 July 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's ambitious nuclear energy
programme risks being grounded even before it could take off with Japan
signalling its intention to suspend negotiations with India, and other
countries, for sale of nuclear-power equipment and technology.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan of Japan has indicated his personal preference
for phasing out nuclear power in his country. It could not have come at
a worse time for Prime Minister Singh, whose government is reeling
under the effects of a recent Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) decision to
restrict the sale of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies.
His government is also battling pressure from American government and
companies alike, to cushion the impact of Indias civil nuclear
liability law on the suppliers. That and the growing climate of
disenchantment with nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster in
Japan could potentially unravel Prime Minister Singhs nuclear gambit
for which he has had to invest significant political capital in his
first term in office.

Japan needs to sign bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with India

and have it ratified by its parliament before it can export nuclear
power technology and equipment. Compounding the problem for India is
that a delay in wrapping up the India-Japan bilateral nuclear pact will
pose a handicap for companies, both Japanese and foreign. Two major US
firms, General Electric and Westinghouse, are either partly or wholly
owned by Japanese companies. Even the French state-owned nuclear power
group Areva has a tie-up with Mitsubishi of Japan.

From the editions in Bengaluru (right), and Chennai (bottom-right)

India is keen to tap Japans experience of constructing the Rokkasho

reprocessing plant with indigenous technology in 1992. India has
concluded negotiations for a reprocessing pact with the US which will
allow setting up of at least two dedicated facilities for reprocessing
US-origin spent nuclear fuel under IAEA safeguards. India and Japan

share similarities in their strategies for the development of nuclear
power. Both have adopted a closed fuel cycle, which entails management
of toxic waste by reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel. Also, they have
opted for a comprehensive fuel cycle, from mining to reprocessing. The
Rokkasho plant has built-in IAEA monitoring equipment and other
advanced design features and India can do with Japan's experience for
designing a state of the art, modern reprocessing facility here.

India and Japan have held three rounds of negotiations so far. Both
sides exchanged views on various aspects related to nuclear energy as
recently as April this year, during foreign secretary Nirupama Raos
talks in Tokyo. Both sides will continue to discuss the way forward
for cooperation in this sphere, a statement issued towards the end of

her visit had said.

Mumbai terrorist attacks: Suspects not known, but Delhi is certain peace talks with Pakistan will continue

New Delhi

14 July 2011

The latest serial blasts in Mumbai may or may not be the handiwork of Pakistani elements inimical to rapprochement with India, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it categorical that peace talks with Pakistan will not be disrupted irrespective of its perpetrators or their motivations.

On the morning after the terror strike, he deployed two of his senior Cabinet colleagues, P Chidambaram and SM Krishna, to reassure an international audience, worried about the consequences of a downturn in India-Pakistan bilateral ties in the wake of another terrorist attack in Mumbai after 26/11, that he will stay the course on Pakistan.

Mr Krishna said that the blasts will have no impact on the talks with his Pakistan counterpart this month. Mr Chidambaram, in turn, said in Mumbai that while all hostile groups are suspects, he would not want to point a finger at any particular group just yet.

Their statements would have calmed fears somewhat, given the sentiment in a section of the international community that peace between Pakistan and India was a global imperative.

The degree of anxiety generated by the attacks could be gauged from a flurry of condolences from world leaders such as Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the US, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Stephen Harper of Canada, William Hague ofBritain, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd of Australia, the foreign ministries of Israel and Japan, and organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union.

However, domestic opinion was divided, with some Indians wondering whether relations with Pakistan had matured to the extent that one could begin to think in terms of moving away from presumption of guilt of elements hostile to the peace process. Also, some attempts to blame the Indian Mujahideen for the attacks were seen as a ruse to insulate New Delhi from criticism of its Pakistan policy.

At the same time, the government sought to defend itself by maintaining that there was nothing to be gained from fingerpointing, and, that its stand was in keeping with the spirit of Thimphu and Sharm-el-Sheikh.

Prime Minister Singh and his Pakistan counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, had agreed in Thimphu in April 2010 that dialogue was the way forward. Since then, the foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of the two countries have met on several occasions.

At Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009, Singh and Gilani had agreed that action on terrorism should not be linked to the dialogue and the two should not be bracketed.

Further, it was pointed out that foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had recently said in aninterview to an Indian television channel that Pakistan's attitude towards tackling terrorism had "altered", and that its talk of tackling non-state elements was a "concrete development."

B Raman, a former official with the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence agency, noted that Pakistan "post-Abbottabad" was not the same as Pakistan pre-Abbottabad. There was an intense introspection regarding Pakistan's relations with the US, and,according to him, India has been a conceptual beneficiary of this introspection.

In an article he wrote before the latest Mumbai attacks, Mr Raman said:"The [language] is changing for the better, though one is not certain how long this would last. One could now sense a feeling of confidence in the Pakistani political leadership that less negative statements about India might have greater public support than in the past."

New Delhi's assertion, that talks with Pakistan will continue, could not have come a moment too soon for Mani Shankar Aiyar of the Congress party. Aiyar, a former diplomat and a former Union minister, may still not find a place in Prime Minister Singh's council of ministers but he has never tired of endorsing Mr Singh's hopes of ensuring that the peace talks with Pakistan become "uninterrupted and uninterruptible."

'India has tried to deal with the BNP and Begum Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh in the past but it takes two to tango'

India’s obsession with Pakistan is hurting its ties with Bangladesh and other neighbours, says Deb Mukharji, a former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, in an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran.

Click on the following ink for reading the full text of the interview: http://interviews-by-ramesh-ramachandran.blogspot.com .

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".

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.

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.