India's Nuclear Agreement
- Thread starter nitesh
- Start date
Marshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 0
Sure ....definetely going to see that ...............but I still belive that L&t will prove much bigger player in this sector......
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
I had sensed it when the nuclear deal was first announced but it got confirmed after samajwadi party came to support the government (anil ambani's best friends). don't count them less these guys have lot of money to put in.
Marshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 0
yes absolutely..........no one can deny that ........ They are definetely going to enter in this market and they can never be discounted but I still fill that the L&T will prove champion in this field..............
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
The main problem will be enacting laws for export control and all must be ready here too many announcements.
Marshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 0
I think after the departure of the commies we will see a smooth functioning of the UPA govt.....I have a lot of expectation specially in power sector reform lets see what happen.............?
Marshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 0
US bound by fuel supply assurances: Mulford
New Delhi: US Ambassador David Mulford has clarified that the Bush administration is bound by fuel supply assurances as laid down in the 123 Agreement.
The clarification came after a letter from the State Department was leaked by Congressman Howard Berman which said that the US would help India deal only with disruption in supply that may result through no fault of its own such as a trade war or market disruption.
"There is nothing new (in the letter) that Government of India did not know. The content in the material was known. The content is what we have discussed (with India)," the US Ambassador said, insisting that there is "no discrepancy" in the letter.
He said the fuel supplies will be governed by the 123 Agreement. New Delhi is agitated over the contents of the letter, saying it gives an impression that the Bush administration is interpreting the 123 agreement differently as the pact makes it clear that the US will ensure uninterrupted supplies.
"It is a straight forward issue... the fuel assurances are contained in the language of the 123 agreement and the discussions that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush had in March 2006," Mulford said
These are the fuel assurances, there is no other fuel assurance," he said, adding "Whatever are the fuel assurances in the civilian nuclear cooperation will be governed by the 123 bilateral agreement."
The fuel supply assurances are not meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear test or violation of non proliferation commitment, the State Department letter said.
The Indian government had reacted immediately saying the letter was at variance with the commitment laid down in the 123 Agreement.
US bound by fuel supply assurances: Mulford
New Delhi: US Ambassador David Mulford has clarified that the Bush administration is bound by fuel supply assurances as laid down in the 123 Agreement.
The clarification came after a letter from the State Department was leaked by Congressman Howard Berman which said that the US would help India deal only with disruption in supply that may result through no fault of its own such as a trade war or market disruption.
"There is nothing new (in the letter) that Government of India did not know. The content in the material was known. The content is what we have discussed (with India)," the US Ambassador said, insisting that there is "no discrepancy" in the letter.
He said the fuel supplies will be governed by the 123 Agreement. New Delhi is agitated over the contents of the letter, saying it gives an impression that the Bush administration is interpreting the 123 agreement differently as the pact makes it clear that the US will ensure uninterrupted supplies.
"It is a straight forward issue... the fuel assurances are contained in the language of the 123 agreement and the discussions that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush had in March 2006," Mulford said
These are the fuel assurances, there is no other fuel assurance," he said, adding "Whatever are the fuel assurances in the civilian nuclear cooperation will be governed by the 123 bilateral agreement."
The fuel supply assurances are not meant to insulate India against the consequences of a nuclear test or violation of non proliferation commitment, the State Department letter said.
The Indian government had reacted immediately saying the letter was at variance with the commitment laid down in the 123 Agreement.
US bound by fuel supply assurances: Mulford
what benfit TN will get out of these reactors ???.
The reactors are fixed for TN beacuse Tamil Nadu has the largest thorium in India rather at international level too.
That was silly.
Do you mean that if excess power is generated in Punjab - they will not give to other provinces ???
TN is part of India, and power is controled by the central govt.
The power is shared equally among all states, and tamilnadu will not get 100%supply if other states dont get 100%.
PS: I am from Tamilnadu, and Areva, the french company has a factory near my house producting electrical relays. Its nice to hear that they do nuclear business also, it will be fun.
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 9 (OneWorld) - Disarmament groups and peace activists are urging Congress to reject the Bush administration's plan to send U.S. nuclear technology to India after the proposal gained the assent of an international monitoring body late last week.
"It will undermine the security of the American people and people everywhere, if Congress allows it to go through," said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, about the U.S.-India pact on nuclear technology.
On Friday, a global conglomerate of 45 nations that set the nuclear trade rules approved the U.S.-India nuclear deal by accepting New Delhi's assertion that its nuclear cooperation with the United States was aimed solely at expanding energy production.
But many independent policy analysts in Washington, DC are not as convinced and see the Bush administration's move as a fatal blow to international efforts aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
"We are concerned about this deal," said Leanor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, an policy think tank on Capitol Hill. "It sets a very dangerous precedent."
Like many others, Krieger and Tomero think the nuclear pact with India would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and encourage other countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
"[It] risks fueling a regional arms race with Pakistan, complicating negotiations over Iran, and unraveling the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," said Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, about the nuclear technology deal.
At the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in Vienna last week, a small group of countries strongly opposed the deal, but eventually failed to sustain their dissent in the wake of intense diplomatic pressure from Washington.
The NSG is an international consortium that is responsible for monitoring and approving nuclear exports worldwide.
The resistance to the deal, according to observers, was led by six like-minded countries -- Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland -- which stressed that India must accept certain conditions before starting the nuclear trade.
Those conditions would have required India to guarantee that it would not use the deal to expand its nuclear weapons-related activities. In response, top Indian officials assured delegates that their country was fully opposed to nuclear proliferation.
But for critics like Tomero and Krieger, that is hard to believe because, like two other nuclear armed states, Israel and Pakistan, India remains unwilling to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"As one of only three countries that has never signed the NPT and by continuing to refuse to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, India has shunned meaningful nonproliferation commitments," said Tomero.
"[It] may promote not only a possible arms race between India and Pakistan, but also [between] India and China," added John Boroughs of the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy, in a recent interview with OneWorld.
In addition to calling for actions against the spread of nuclear weapons, the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty also requires the five declared nuclear powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States -- to engage in "good-faith negotiations" toward eliminating their nuclear stockpiles.
Analysts see the approval of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement as a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1172, which prohibits the export of technology that could in any way "assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons.''
The 1998 resolution was adopted with consensus soon after both India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices in defiance of international agreement against the spread of nuclear weapons.
Since the 1947 partition when the British ended their colonial rule in the Indian sub-continent, India and Pakistan have gone to war with each other three times. Currently, both countries are in possession of a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons.
According to the Uranium Resource Center, India has as many as 14 nuclear energy reactors in commercial operation and 9 under construction. Currently, its nuclear power supplies are estimated to account for about 3 percent of total electricity production.
Though India strongly denies that it intends to use the deal with the United States to expand its nuclear weapons program, its officials have also argued that the deal does not preclude the country from carrying out further nuclear tests.
Critics have described the U.S. acceptance of India's nuclear weapons program as amounting to ''a major concession'' for a country that has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
But in reflecting on the consequences of the U.S.-India agreement and its approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Tomero also held Russia and other major powers responsible for the breach of international rules governing the non-proliferation regime.
"The U.S. nuclear industry has pushed hard for this deal," she said. "[However], Japan, Russia, and France will also gain from this because they think more nuclear competition is profitable. I think the Congress will have to look at this very carefully."
Congress to Have Final Say
Observers say they expect the Bush administration will try hard to get the nuclear deal with India approved by Congress before the presidential polls are held in November.
"I think Berman will put on a lot of pressure," said Tomero, referring to Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee. In a statement last Monday, Berman made it clear that any final agreement "must be consistent" with the 2006 Hyde Act, which calls for "immediate termination" of all nuclear trade by NSG members if India detonates a nuclear explosive device.
"Congress needs to study the NSG decision, along with any agreements that were made behind the scenes," said Berman. "If the administration wants to seek special procedures, it will have to show how the NSG decision is consistent with the Hyde Act."
"The burden of proof," according to Berman, "is on the Bush administration so that Congress can be assured that what we're being asked to approve conforms to U.S. law," he added in a statement.
Meanwhile, peace activists are stepping up their lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, amid calls for voters to urge their Congressional representatives to take a firm stand against the nuclear trade deal with India.
"It's time for action," said Kreiger. "Other countries will be looking at this deal as a model that will serve their own interests as well. If the United States can do it with India, why not China with Pakistan? Or Russia with Iran? Or Pakistan with Syria?"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday launched an all-out effort to persuade the U.S. Congress to approve an agreement to end a three-decade ban on nuclear trade with India this year.
Rice went to Capitol Hill to call on House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman to discuss how to win congressional approval for the accord before U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office on January 20.
A spokesman for Pelosi said she Rice discussed the process for considering the agreement once it is submitted.
"The Speaker looks forward to reviewing the submission in detail and consulting with Chairman Berman and members of the leadership in determining the appropriate course of action," spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.
With the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, Pelosi and Berman, both from California, are key players in deciding whether U.S. lawmakers will vote on the deal this year and hand Bush a foreign policy victory in his final months.
"We think that there is a possibility of getting this passed this year and we are going to do everything we possibly can," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "Whether it does or not, it's not going to be for lack of effort."
McCormack said Rice hoped to send the paperwork to Congress within the next two days. But India must also take steps to satisfy U.S. legal requirements.
Rice has lobbied top Democrats and Republicans as well as key members of the House and Senate foreign affairs committees, the spokesman said.
The United States took a major step toward enacting the agreement on Saturday when it secured the approval of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to lift the global ban on nuclear trade with nuclear-armed India.
U.S. congressional blessing is the last hurdle to the deal, which the Bush administration believes will forge a strategic partnership with the world's largest democracy, help India meet its burgeoning energy demand and open a nuclear market worth billions of dollars.
But the agreement has raised international misgivings because India is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty meant to stop the spread and production of nuclear weapons and a companion international agreement banning nuclear tests.
UNDERMINES SPREAD
Critics believe the deal undermines efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and sets a precedent allowing other nations to seek to buy such technology without submitting to the full range of global safeguards.
Before sending the deal to Congress, the administration must certify India has made "substantial progress" toward an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency on an "additional protocol" of safeguards to verify it is using civilian nuclear facilities only for peaceful purposes.
It must also certify that India has formally adhered to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary pact that aims to limit the spread of ballistic missile technology.
Once the agreement has been sent to Congress, under current law it must remain for 30 days before it can be voted on.
Given that Congress is expected to adjourn by the end of September so lawmakers can campaign for the November 4 U.S. election, there is not enough time to meet the 30-day requirement without a "lame duck" session after the election.
Congressional aides said there were ways to circumvent the 30-day requirement but all required the solid support of the Democratic leadership of both houses of Congress.
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
This will be interesting:
EU nations eye single nuke pact with India
EU nations eye single nuke pact with India
Bs Reporter / New Delhi September 10, 2008, 0:14 IST
he European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.
“The NSG waiver has created conditions for working with India on nuclear issues. The European Commission has to consult member states to work on these issues. That is the position we will take in the next few weeks,” said Matthias Ruete, director-general for energy and transport, European Commission, the executive branch of the EU. He was speaking on “EU-India challenges: Energy and Transport and Climate Change” at a meeting with industry players in Delhi.
This comes at a time the domestic industry is gearing up to enter the nuclear arena. On Monday, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industries (Assocham) set up a lobby group comprising 40 Indian companies, including Jindal Power and Tata Power, to promote private participation in nuclear power generation.
The NSG, a few days ago, agreed to lift a 34-year-old restriction on India, helping it to resume nuclear commerce with the rest of the world. The decision has now opened a new chapter in India’s cooperation with other countries in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Ruete also announced the setting up of a “New European business and technology centre”, in New Delhi later this week, to focus on research in energy conservation, climate change, biotechnology, transport and renewable energy.
The EU has set a target of increasing renewable energy’s share in its energy mix to 20 per cent by 2020. It aims to meet 10 per cent of its transport needs through renewable energy by that year.
Energy and transport are the two strategic areas for economic cooperation between India and the EU.
EU nations eye single nuke pact with India
EU nations eye single nuke pact with India
Bs Reporter / New Delhi September 10, 2008, 0:14 IST
he European Union (EU) is likely to take a collective decision on nuclear commerce with India, even as France and the UK are making contact with India to tap the opportunity arising from the recent waiver by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to India to carry out nuclear trade.
“The NSG waiver has created conditions for working with India on nuclear issues. The European Commission has to consult member states to work on these issues. That is the position we will take in the next few weeks,” said Matthias Ruete, director-general for energy and transport, European Commission, the executive branch of the EU. He was speaking on “EU-India challenges: Energy and Transport and Climate Change” at a meeting with industry players in Delhi.
This comes at a time the domestic industry is gearing up to enter the nuclear arena. On Monday, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industries (Assocham) set up a lobby group comprising 40 Indian companies, including Jindal Power and Tata Power, to promote private participation in nuclear power generation.
The NSG, a few days ago, agreed to lift a 34-year-old restriction on India, helping it to resume nuclear commerce with the rest of the world. The decision has now opened a new chapter in India’s cooperation with other countries in peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Ruete also announced the setting up of a “New European business and technology centre”, in New Delhi later this week, to focus on research in energy conservation, climate change, biotechnology, transport and renewable energy.
The EU has set a target of increasing renewable energy’s share in its energy mix to 20 per cent by 2020. It aims to meet 10 per cent of its transport needs through renewable energy by that year.
Energy and transport are the two strategic areas for economic cooperation between India and the EU.
nitesh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,261
- Reaction score
- 0
The Hindu : Front Page : “Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports”
“Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports”
R. Prasad
“Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here”
We should tie up with fuel supplying countries: S.K. Jain
CHENNAI: The waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a great opportunity for India to become a major exporter of critical and non-critical nuclear components to both the developed and developing countries.
“There is limited manufacturing capacity in the world today,” said S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).
India already has 100 per cent capacity to manufacture all components of a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), he pointed out.
In the case of the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), India has the capacity to manufacture 40 per cent of the critical components, 50 per cent capacity to manufacture turbines, generators and other auxiliaries, and about 80 per cent capacity with respect to other components.
“But the real attraction is the lower cost when reactors are manufactured here. It will be 20-25 per cent cheaper when they are manufactured in India,” Mr. Jain said.
With more than 30 countries seriously looking at the PWRs, the opportunity for India to become a manufacturing hub was promising. Developing countries were looking at small and medium-size reactors.
“We do not have the capacity to manufacture the reactor vessel and other critical components for a PWR. But we can fabricate them by importing some parts,” he said.
“We jointly assessed our capability and found that we can upgrade our facilities to manufacture all the parts for a 1000-1600 MW PWRs with proper technological tie-ups,” he said.
The joint assessment involved NPCIL and companies such as Areva of France and General Electric of the U.S.
No such import of any parts was required for the manufacture of PHWR reactors, as the Indian industry was fully equipped to manufacture all components.
“We are a very strong contender for small (300 MW) and medium (600-700 MW) size reactors. India is the only country in the world to have a vibrant industry to manufacture a PHWR. So there is a big potential for us,” he said.
Word of caution
But with the possibility of enriching plutonium when the PHWRs are used, India should be more careful to which country it was exporting. “It would be safe to export these reactors to countries that have no existing nuclear programme.”
Mr. Jain said supplying reactors to developing countries alone would not suffice.
“We should have joint tie-ups with fuel supplying countries for the programme to take off.” Such a tie-up may not be required when countries already arranged for fuel supply.
“Waiver offers opportunity for nuclear exports”
R. Prasad
“Reactors can be manufactured at a lower cost here”
We should tie up with fuel supplying countries: S.K. Jain
CHENNAI: The waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a great opportunity for India to become a major exporter of critical and non-critical nuclear components to both the developed and developing countries.
“There is limited manufacturing capacity in the world today,” said S.K. Jain, Chairman and Managing Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).
India already has 100 per cent capacity to manufacture all components of a Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), he pointed out.
In the case of the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), India has the capacity to manufacture 40 per cent of the critical components, 50 per cent capacity to manufacture turbines, generators and other auxiliaries, and about 80 per cent capacity with respect to other components.
“But the real attraction is the lower cost when reactors are manufactured here. It will be 20-25 per cent cheaper when they are manufactured in India,” Mr. Jain said.
With more than 30 countries seriously looking at the PWRs, the opportunity for India to become a manufacturing hub was promising. Developing countries were looking at small and medium-size reactors.
“We do not have the capacity to manufacture the reactor vessel and other critical components for a PWR. But we can fabricate them by importing some parts,” he said.
“We jointly assessed our capability and found that we can upgrade our facilities to manufacture all the parts for a 1000-1600 MW PWRs with proper technological tie-ups,” he said.
The joint assessment involved NPCIL and companies such as Areva of France and General Electric of the U.S.
No such import of any parts was required for the manufacture of PHWR reactors, as the Indian industry was fully equipped to manufacture all components.
“We are a very strong contender for small (300 MW) and medium (600-700 MW) size reactors. India is the only country in the world to have a vibrant industry to manufacture a PHWR. So there is a big potential for us,” he said.
Word of caution
But with the possibility of enriching plutonium when the PHWRs are used, India should be more careful to which country it was exporting. “It would be safe to export these reactors to countries that have no existing nuclear programme.”
Mr. Jain said supplying reactors to developing countries alone would not suffice.
“We should have joint tie-ups with fuel supplying countries for the programme to take off.” Such a tie-up may not be required when countries already arranged for fuel supply.
Marshal
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 0
If this become possible then it will be a possible bad news for India.....as 4 members of the EU..eg Austria...etc etc....will definetely try to put some clause in it...however France, Germany and UK may not agree with it.....lets see what happen
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Below is neither news nor propaganda, it is however; policy prescription
The U.S. and India expanding engagement agenda
Karl F. Inderfurth
Earlier this year, five former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell took part in a roundtable discussion entitled, Bipartisan Advice to the Next Administration. During their conversation, this question was posed: What should a new administration do in terms of dealing with India?
Former Secretary Kissinger responded: The relationship with India is one of the very positive things that is happening. We can cooperate with them both on ideological grounds and on strategic grounds. Its one of the positive legacies that the new administration will inherit.
After decades of being estranged democracies, the United States and India have entered a new era that can best be described as engaged democracies. Assuming the next U.S. president who takes office on January 20, 2009 views India in the same emerging global power context as the last two administrations as both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have indicated they will how should the new administration proceed to expand this new strategic partnership?
Seven-point agenda
Clearly that effort should be broad-based, befitting the range of bilateral, regional, and global interests shared by the two countries. Moreover, it should be ambitious, building on the foundation laid over the past several years. The following seven-point engagement agenda should therefore be considered.
First, strengthen strategic ties. A strong India is important for balance of power purposes in Asia and for providing stability in the strategically important Indian Ocean littoral area. India is in a position to safeguard sea-lanes that are used to transport more than half the worlds oil and gas. The navies of the United States and India have begun to conduct joint exercises aimed against threats to maritime commerce.
There has been a quantum jump in U.S.-India defence ties in the past several years with joint military exercises, the signing of a 10-year defence framework agreement, and increased interest in defence procurement and collaboration between defence industries. These ties should be accelerated.
Another arena for greater strategic cooperation is in counter-terrorism. India has been a target of terrorist attacks longer than the United States. Expanding counter-terrorism cooperation requires increased information sharing and building tighter liaison bonds between U.S. and Indian intelligence and security services.
Second, realise economic potential. Underpinning the strategic partnership should be a concerted effort to realise the full economic potential of the U.S.-India relationship. Steps need to be taken to deepen commercial ties, identify and remove impediments on both sides (still far too many), and clear the way for a new era of trade cooperation and investment. Deeper economic ties will also have the added advantage of providing needed ballast in the overall relationship when political differences arise, as they surely will.
Third, pursue a broader nuclear dialogue. It has long been a goal of the United States to engage India as a partner in global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
But for more than a quarter of a century, the two countries have been on the opposite side of the nuclear divide unable to reconcile Indias nuclear weapons programme and its security compulsions with the nuclear nonproliferation concerns and policies of the United States.
The U.S.- India civilian nuclear agreement announced in 2005 launched a major effort to bridge that divide. With that announcement, the United States explicitly recognised Indias status as a full-fledged nuclear power, and committed itself to a partnership in the realm of civilian nuclear energy. The recent decision of the 45- member Nuclear Supplies Group to approve access by India to nuclear fuel and technology is a major step forward in this regard. It brings to an end, in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh words, Indias decades-long isolation from the nuclear mainstream. Over time these developments may open the door to an even broader nuclear dialogue the United States and India could pursue, especially to counter the dangers posed by nuclear know-how proliferating and non-state terrorist groups seeking to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction, something that neither country wants to see.
At the same time, it is also essential to recognise that the civilian nuclear agreement is an important part but not the sum total of the much improved and expanding broad-based relationship between the two countries that already includes sensitive areas once virtually off limits to any form of cooperation, such as high-technology transfers and joint ventures in space. These areas were once considered the litmus test of the new U.S.-India relationship. That test is being passed.
Fourth, highlight higher education. A 2005 policy report by a high-level panel of U.S. and Indian experts states: Higher education is among the most important, and least appreciated, foundations of the budding partnership between India and the United States. The benefits for India of higher education collaboration with the United States are many: increasing the quality of its higher education opportunities, retaining good talent within the country, and reaping the benefits of foreign investment. For the United States, there will be greater opportunities for exchanges and to learn and collaborate in fields of increasing importance to both countries including science, public health, and information technology.
Fifth, support Indias United Nations bid. Enhanced U.S.-India cooperation should also extend to the institutions of global governance. It is time for the United States to publicly support Indias bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and to work actively with India (and others) to accomplish the goal of Security Council expansion. With its thriving democracy, its billion plus population, its expanding economy, and its longstanding contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, the case for a permanent Indian seat has never been stronger.
Sixth, collaborate in the neighbourhood. Another area for greater collaboration should be at the regional level, in the subcontinent itself. Both India and the United States want a South Asia that is prosperous, stable and democratic. Already, the United States and India are working together in Nepal as it pursues a permanent peace and a new political dispensation. India and the United States should cooperate in trying to stabilise Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, both of which face significant internal political difficulties. India and the United States also have a shared interest in a secure and stable Afghanistan and one that is at peace with all its neighbours.
The toughest longstanding issue in the South Asia neighbourhood remains Indias relations with Pakistan and attempts to advance the nascent Indo-Pakistani dialogue. In recent years, this dialogue has produced some practical steps on normalising ties and confidence building measures; and there has been a serious exploration of the Kashmir conflict. The United States should signal its strong support for India and Pakistan as they seek to improve their relations and resolve their differences, but should defer to them as they grapple with the best approach on how to accomplish this.
Seventh, promote a cooperative triangle. Along with the much-improved U.S.-India relationship has come questions about the underlying motivations for this new direction in American foreign policy, specifically whether it represents a hedge by Washington against a rising China, Indias most consequential neighbour. These manipulative temptations should be resisted. Strengthened U.S. ties with India have their own strategic logic and imperatives and should not be part of a China containment strategy, something Indian officials would strongly oppose.
Need for cooperative triangle
Instead, the task for all three is to manage ties as a cooperative not a competitive triangle. One way to further a closer, cooperative relationship between the United States (and the leading industrialised nations) and India and China would be to make these two global powers formal members of an expanded Group of Eight. Another would be to pursue initiatives in three critical areas that the three countries must all address and play a major role: energy, the environment and international health.
It is clear that a new era has begun for U.S.-India relations. The last two American presidents recognised that fundamental change was under way with India as an emerging global power and acted accordingly. Their desire to enhance our relations was reciprocated by Indias national leadership. A strong foundation for a vibrant U.S.-India relationship has been established, upon which the next U.S. administration, under either President Obama or McCain, can engage and expand.
(Karl F. Inderfurth is a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. He served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1997-2001 and is a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. This column is adapted from his chapter on U.S. India Relations that appears in the report of The Asia Foundation entitled Americas Role in Asia: Asian and American Views, to be released on September 10
The U.S. and India expanding engagement agenda
Karl F. Inderfurth
Earlier this year, five former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell took part in a roundtable discussion entitled, Bipartisan Advice to the Next Administration. During their conversation, this question was posed: What should a new administration do in terms of dealing with India?
Former Secretary Kissinger responded: The relationship with India is one of the very positive things that is happening. We can cooperate with them both on ideological grounds and on strategic grounds. Its one of the positive legacies that the new administration will inherit.
After decades of being estranged democracies, the United States and India have entered a new era that can best be described as engaged democracies. Assuming the next U.S. president who takes office on January 20, 2009 views India in the same emerging global power context as the last two administrations as both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have indicated they will how should the new administration proceed to expand this new strategic partnership?
Seven-point agenda
Clearly that effort should be broad-based, befitting the range of bilateral, regional, and global interests shared by the two countries. Moreover, it should be ambitious, building on the foundation laid over the past several years. The following seven-point engagement agenda should therefore be considered.
First, strengthen strategic ties. A strong India is important for balance of power purposes in Asia and for providing stability in the strategically important Indian Ocean littoral area. India is in a position to safeguard sea-lanes that are used to transport more than half the worlds oil and gas. The navies of the United States and India have begun to conduct joint exercises aimed against threats to maritime commerce.
There has been a quantum jump in U.S.-India defence ties in the past several years with joint military exercises, the signing of a 10-year defence framework agreement, and increased interest in defence procurement and collaboration between defence industries. These ties should be accelerated.
Another arena for greater strategic cooperation is in counter-terrorism. India has been a target of terrorist attacks longer than the United States. Expanding counter-terrorism cooperation requires increased information sharing and building tighter liaison bonds between U.S. and Indian intelligence and security services.
Second, realise economic potential. Underpinning the strategic partnership should be a concerted effort to realise the full economic potential of the U.S.-India relationship. Steps need to be taken to deepen commercial ties, identify and remove impediments on both sides (still far too many), and clear the way for a new era of trade cooperation and investment. Deeper economic ties will also have the added advantage of providing needed ballast in the overall relationship when political differences arise, as they surely will.
Third, pursue a broader nuclear dialogue. It has long been a goal of the United States to engage India as a partner in global efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
But for more than a quarter of a century, the two countries have been on the opposite side of the nuclear divide unable to reconcile Indias nuclear weapons programme and its security compulsions with the nuclear nonproliferation concerns and policies of the United States.
The U.S.- India civilian nuclear agreement announced in 2005 launched a major effort to bridge that divide. With that announcement, the United States explicitly recognised Indias status as a full-fledged nuclear power, and committed itself to a partnership in the realm of civilian nuclear energy. The recent decision of the 45- member Nuclear Supplies Group to approve access by India to nuclear fuel and technology is a major step forward in this regard. It brings to an end, in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh words, Indias decades-long isolation from the nuclear mainstream. Over time these developments may open the door to an even broader nuclear dialogue the United States and India could pursue, especially to counter the dangers posed by nuclear know-how proliferating and non-state terrorist groups seeking to obtain and use weapons of mass destruction, something that neither country wants to see.
At the same time, it is also essential to recognise that the civilian nuclear agreement is an important part but not the sum total of the much improved and expanding broad-based relationship between the two countries that already includes sensitive areas once virtually off limits to any form of cooperation, such as high-technology transfers and joint ventures in space. These areas were once considered the litmus test of the new U.S.-India relationship. That test is being passed.
Fourth, highlight higher education. A 2005 policy report by a high-level panel of U.S. and Indian experts states: Higher education is among the most important, and least appreciated, foundations of the budding partnership between India and the United States. The benefits for India of higher education collaboration with the United States are many: increasing the quality of its higher education opportunities, retaining good talent within the country, and reaping the benefits of foreign investment. For the United States, there will be greater opportunities for exchanges and to learn and collaborate in fields of increasing importance to both countries including science, public health, and information technology.
Fifth, support Indias United Nations bid. Enhanced U.S.-India cooperation should also extend to the institutions of global governance. It is time for the United States to publicly support Indias bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and to work actively with India (and others) to accomplish the goal of Security Council expansion. With its thriving democracy, its billion plus population, its expanding economy, and its longstanding contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, the case for a permanent Indian seat has never been stronger.
Sixth, collaborate in the neighbourhood. Another area for greater collaboration should be at the regional level, in the subcontinent itself. Both India and the United States want a South Asia that is prosperous, stable and democratic. Already, the United States and India are working together in Nepal as it pursues a permanent peace and a new political dispensation. India and the United States should cooperate in trying to stabilise Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, both of which face significant internal political difficulties. India and the United States also have a shared interest in a secure and stable Afghanistan and one that is at peace with all its neighbours.
The toughest longstanding issue in the South Asia neighbourhood remains Indias relations with Pakistan and attempts to advance the nascent Indo-Pakistani dialogue. In recent years, this dialogue has produced some practical steps on normalising ties and confidence building measures; and there has been a serious exploration of the Kashmir conflict. The United States should signal its strong support for India and Pakistan as they seek to improve their relations and resolve their differences, but should defer to them as they grapple with the best approach on how to accomplish this.
Seventh, promote a cooperative triangle. Along with the much-improved U.S.-India relationship has come questions about the underlying motivations for this new direction in American foreign policy, specifically whether it represents a hedge by Washington against a rising China, Indias most consequential neighbour. These manipulative temptations should be resisted. Strengthened U.S. ties with India have their own strategic logic and imperatives and should not be part of a China containment strategy, something Indian officials would strongly oppose.
Need for cooperative triangle
Instead, the task for all three is to manage ties as a cooperative not a competitive triangle. One way to further a closer, cooperative relationship between the United States (and the leading industrialised nations) and India and China would be to make these two global powers formal members of an expanded Group of Eight. Another would be to pursue initiatives in three critical areas that the three countries must all address and play a major role: energy, the environment and international health.
It is clear that a new era has begun for U.S.-India relations. The last two American presidents recognised that fundamental change was under way with India as an emerging global power and acted accordingly. Their desire to enhance our relations was reciprocated by Indias national leadership. A strong foundation for a vibrant U.S.-India relationship has been established, upon which the next U.S. administration, under either President Obama or McCain, can engage and expand.
(Karl F. Inderfurth is a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. He served as U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1997-2001 and is a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. This column is adapted from his chapter on U.S. India Relations that appears in the report of The Asia Foundation entitled Americas Role in Asia: Asian and American Views, to be released on September 10
