Indian rope-trick in play

Indian rope-trick in play

by pv vivekanand



The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has scored a resounding victory with Tuesday's parliamentary vote of confidence. Manmohan Singh, who had staked not only his future but also that of his government and party (and indeed the country), is now free to go ahead with the controversial nuclear agreement with the US.
The victory vindicates Manmohan Singh's clear determination to go ahead with the "deal" with the US even in the face of opposition from his colleagues in the Congress Party and partners in the coalition government.
At every point in the heated debate over the agreement, Manmohan Singh steadfastly maintained that deal was crucial to achieving energy security for the 1.1 billion people of India and it had no negative impact on the country's strategic military programme and its right to conduct nuclear tests.
However, it is clear that it is not a simple matter of India's energy security when seen in light of the extraordinarily secretive way New Delhi kept the details of the agreement and the brashness with which Washington pressured the Manmohan Singh government to conclude the deal.
Furthermore, the Indian government surreptitiously approached the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to secure approval for an inspection agreement it signed last year with the IAEA secretariat related to the country's to civilian nuclear reactors. That suspect approach should not have been made without approval by the Congress Party's ruling coalition partners. The government had made a promise not to move the IAEA board without considering the findings of a coalition committee on the nuclear deal set up last year.
In effect, the inspection agreement signed with the IAEA secretariat is not different from the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states.
The finding undermines the Indian government's argument that the agreement with the IAEA is "India-specific."
According to MV Ramana, a senior analyst at the Bangalore-based Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, "it fails to defend India's strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state."
The secretive details of the US-India nuclear accord filtering out through the Internet — and released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in a hurry thereafter — have pulled the rug from under New Delhi's summary argument that the agreement is heavily in favour of India's interest and it represents a magnanimous US gesture towards the country in view of its emerging status as a regional power.
The details of the actual agreement contradict provisions included the original text of the July 2005 accord signed by US President George W Bush and Manmohan Singh which assures India of "the same benefits and advantages" and the same obligations as other "states with advanced nuclear technology" — meaning nuclear weapons-states. That contradiction rejects the Indian government's argument that the agreement has no impact whatsoever on the country's military application of nuclear power.
However, the real clincher is beyond the nuclear context.
There are many ifs and buts in view of the restrictions and conditions that the US has included in the nuclear agreement that critics say are aimed at enslaving India and holding it hostage to US global strategies.
In simple terms, many say it is difficult to see India manoeuvring through the US nuclear labyrinth and still maintaining its tradition of an independent foreign policy.
MK Bhadrakumar, who served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, says: "The deal enables the US to selectively waive its embargo on dual-use technology to India, which, in turn, enables the American military-industrial complex to enter the huge Indian market as an arms supplier; and places India incrementally as an ally in the US's Asian strategies against Russia and China, or at the very least ensures against a future Russia-China-India entente cordiale." (www.atimes.com).
The nuclear agreement contains a provision where India undertakes to co-operate with the US in efforts to contain regional nuclear proliferation. That is very much relevant in the immediate context of the US-Iran stand-off where Washington could justify possible military action against Iran in the name of anti-proliferation efforts and demand Indian co-operation, critics say.
Some leftist leaders, who accuse Manmohan Singh of having "sold" his "soul" along with India to US interests, maintain that Indian territory would be used by the US to stage military action against Iran. However, it is highly unlikely, given the political experience and acumen of the Congress Party to which Manmohan Singh belongs. Any Indian government which supports and helps the US in actions aimed at defending and serving the superpower's narrow interests in this part of the world would not last for long. Popular sentiments would not allow it, and the Congress Party should but be perfectly aware of the political pitfall.
Rightists, including some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that the nuclear deal irreversibly places India in the US orbit. That is indeed a laugh, given that the BJP had sought to build a strong "strategic alliance" with the US five years ago when it was in power and BJP leaders were more than willing to be part of a US-led axis that included Israel to fight "terrorism" and "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of dangerous missiles."
With the vote of confidence in his government, Manmohan Singh is now on his way to be seen as the brains behind two of the most important landmarks in India's history — sweeping reforms that turned around the country's economic fortunes in the early 90s and adopting nuclear energy as the country's mainstay source for power.
At the same time, he also risks being accused of sacrificing everything that India stood for, starting with its "non-aligned" status (which has become a hollow phrase anyway) and independent foreign and security policy. He would also be accused of firmly leading the country into the "American camp" that is hated among the "natural socialists" of the deprived classes not only in India but also around the world and of course the leftists and Muslims because of its aggressive foreign policies based on its belief in military solutions even to socially-rooted political conflicts.
Surely, Manmohan Singh and his strategic advisers could not but be aware of the delicate rope-trick facing them. That realisation gives rise to a belief that the Indian prime minister does have a pre-determined course of direction that would — hopefully — steer the country away from the pitfalls and undercurrents associated with any "strategic alliance" with the US at least until his term runs out in May 2009. What happens thereafter is anyone's guess since foreign policy has never been the determining factor for Indian voters.

The other side of international justice

July 23, 2008


The other side of international justice


THE ARREST of Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted men, on Monday, 13 years after he was first indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal, should spark a sense of satisfaction to all of those who are interested in ensuring supremacy of international justice around the world.
Karadzic, 63, faces genocide charges for his role in the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Europe’s worst atrocity since World War II, and for organising the siege of Sarajevo which claimed 12,000 lives.
The UN war crimes tribunal, which says it has concrete evidence of Karadzic's guilt, has described him as the mastermind of "scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history."
Karadzic was detained by Serb forces inside the country on Monday, according to Serbian President Boris Tadic, for whom the arrest is a significant breakthrough. Serbia has faced international isolation while Karadzic and fellow war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb army commander, have remained at large. The European Union has made their hand-over a condition for any progress towards Serbia's membership in the bloc.
According to UN prosecutors, both Karadzic and Mladic and other Serbs suspected of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were protected by Bosnian Serb nationalists. Karadzic's arrest is seen to have made possible after Serb nationalists lost power in Serbia when the pro-Western Tadic government took over last month.
Some reports speculate that those members of the Serbian security services who knew where Karadzic was hiding either passed on that information, or simply stepped aside to allow pro-Western agents to arrest him.
The replacement of the old head of Serbian intelligence, Rade Bulatovic, with a new man, Sasha Vukadinovic, must have played a significant role. says the BBC.
Karadzic led the self-proclaimed Serb administration of Bosnia in the early 1990s which resisted the country’s independence and suppressed other ethnic groups in some of the worst violence that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.
His trial will be a very important event for the families of the victims of massacres and suppression carried out under Karadzic's directions. They have waited for his arrest for over a decade.
Technically, his arrest underlines that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice. Still at large in the Serbian case is Karadzic's ally Ratko Mladic, who is also indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Only when he is arrested and tried would there be full accountability for the genocide at Srebrenica.
Also at large is Croatian Serb ex-rebel leader Goran Hadzic.
So far so good for Serbia and its new government, which is seeking to enter mainstream life in Europe through the EU, and for all the people in the world who want justice done.
For us in the Middle East, the arrest of Karadzic — and the ongoing effort to have Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir tried on genocide charges in Darfur — are reminders of the double standards of world powers.
Why isn't anyone blamed for the death of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as the direct and indirect result of the US invasion and occupation of their country more than five years ago? Why isn't anyone held responsible for the immense suffering that has been inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan?
Why isn't anyone blamed for the killings, summary detentions, demolition of homes and other atrocities committed against the people of Palestine who are exercising their legitimate right to resist the foreign military occupation of their land?