Dr Anil Kakodkar, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission,
detonated a bombshell on February 6 when he publicly pronounced on the
“nuclear cooperation” deal with the United States and accused Washington
of shifting “the goalpost.” Dr Kakodkar confirmed that the principal
differences between the two sides pertain to the separation of military
nuclear facilities from civilian ones, so the latter can be placed under
“safeguards” (International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections). The
sharpest divergence is about including India’s fast-breeder reactor
(FBR) programme in the list of civilian facilities.
The US wants India to put the FBRs in the civilian list because they are
a potential source of weapons-grade plutonium. India would like to keep
them out. India earlier claimed that the FBR programme is essential for
nuclear power generation and for India’s long-term energy security; but
since it’s still under development, FBRs must be treated as “research”
reactors and exempted from safeguards. Now, Dr Kakodkar reveals a
different rationale for keeping FBRs out. He says they are essential
“for maintaining the minimum credible deterrent” too.
Dr Kakodkar has thus tied FBRs to a security calculus. And to that
calculus, he has added considerations of sovereignty: the determination
of which facilities are civilian and which are military “has to be made
by the Indians… India’s strategic interests will have to be decided by
India and not by others.” His statement, made without prior
authorisation from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), has clearly raised
the stakes in the complex transactions now under way between New Delhi
and Washington. It indicates a hardening of India’s negotiating posture.
The AEC chairman couldn’t have been unaware that his statement, made in
an interview to The Indian Express, would complicate matters in
Washington and impel policy-makers there to harden their positions
vis-à-vis India. In fact, he seems to have chosen this sensitive stage
in the negotiation process precisely because he wanted to hit back at
his detractors who have orchestrated a media campaign to mount pressure
on New Delhi to quickly finalise the July 18 deal on the lopsided terms
favoured by Washington. They want the government to ignore the
“isolationist”, “autarkic”, “outdated” lobby of “reactionary” nuclear
scientists.
The AEC chairman’s interview was clearly calculated to press Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to stick to the first civilian facilities list
which India forwarded to the Americans. The FBRs were excluded from this
along with all facilities at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in
Mumbai, the uranium enrichment plant near Mysore, and at least two
nuclear power reactors of the Madras Atomic Power Station. Dr Kakodkar’s
insistence that India stick to the original proposal, and the hostile
reaction to him from media commentators allied to his detractors,
together suggest that there is a serious division in the Indian
Establishment over the nuclear deal and how it is to be fleshed out and
implemented.
Broadly speaking, India’s policy-makers and –shapers are split between
two major camps: first, the “ultra-nationalists” who see the July 18
agreement as a “sellout” and capitulation to American pressure to cap
India’s nuclear capabilities; and second, “pro-US pragmatists”, who
themselves are nuclear hawks. There is also a third current represented
by the small but growing peace movement, which opposes the deal not
because it limits India’s sovereignty (itself questionable as regards
mass-destruction weapons), but because it legitimises nuclear weapons,
consolidates a US-India strategic alliance, promotes the wrong energy
path, and encourages proliferation. More on this later.
Three questions arise. What explains the split in the Establishment and
Dr Kakodkar’s rather extreme step of talking to the media? How will that
change the likely outcome of the Indo-US talks? And does India stand to
gain or lose on military and energy security if the agreement falls
through? The “ultra-nationalist” vs. “pro-US pragmatist” split
corresponds to differences between the bulk of India’s nuclear and
defence scientists-engineers, and those who unabashedly advocate a
Washington-dictated nuclear agenda.
The first group reflects the culture of the Department of Atomic Energy
(DAE), which has always been pampered and shielded from public scrutiny
despite its remarkable poor performance. The DAE is the government’s
most privileged department, which has soaked up thousands of crores of
public money to deliver a pitiful 2.5 percent of India’s
electricity—with a host of safety problems. It falsely claims that its
programme is largely indigenous, when it has borrowed and bought
technology from the UK, US, Canada, USSR, Russia, France, China, even
Norway. It loathes the very idea of international safeguards and
staunchly resists any accountability. The DAE was dragged, kicking and
screaming, into endorsing it. It’s now wreaking its revenge.
The “pro-US pragmatists” believe that India should accept the deal and
sign on the dotted line: there’s no better way to get India accepted and
legitimised as a nuclear weapons-state and strengthen the US-India
strategic alliance. That’s the shortcut to global glory and Great Power
status—while perpetuating domestic poverty and social backwardness. Of
late, this group has suddenly discovered the virtues of nuclear
electricity. It now points to the DAE’s appalling record in power
generation.
This group always knew that the US promise—reiterated by Dr Singh in his
July 28 Parliament Statement—that the deal would be strictly reciprocal
and equal, is empty rhetoric. In reality, India would have to satisfy
the US that the civilian-military separation is “credible” and
“defensible”. If that means bending the knee and compromising on India’s
foreign policy options, then so be it. No wonder this lobby campaigned
for India’s shameful votes at the IAEA against Iran on September 24 and
February 4.
The DAE is equally wrong to present FBRs as the gateway to energy
security. FBRs are not a proved, mature technology. They have been a
failure everywhere, including in France, the world’s fast-breeder
“leader”, which recently closed down the much tomtommed “Superphenix”
reactor after a series of disastrous accidents. India’s “third stage”
thorium reactor is a hypothesis, not reality.
However, the DAE has a trump card in the text of the July 18 deal, which
says the civilian-military separation would be “voluntary” and be done
“in a phased manner.” But the identification and separation won’t be
“voluntary” for India. India will have to satisfy Washington if the deal
is to go through the US Congress, which must amend domestic laws to
allow resumption of nuclear commerce with India. Dr Kakodkar has
capitalised on this and tried to checkmate the PMO! He knows the PM
cannot sack or reprimand him publicly without losing face and attracting
the political charge of acting under US pressure.
However, it’s extremely likely that the US will accept exclusion of FBRs
from the civilian list as a “credible” sign of India’s “responsible”
status and commitment to non-proliferation. FBRs are an open-ended
source of plutonium for both civilian and military purposes. If India
has raised the stakes on FBRs, so can the US. Besides, a beleaguered
President Bush, whose acceptance ratings have plummeted to barely 40
percent after leading America into the Iraq quagmire, and who faces
stiff domestic challenges, is likely to find or expend the political
capital to push the deal through if FBRs are excluded. So, the deal is
unlikely to go through before Mr Bush’s visit. If the deal is not
finalised soon, the momentum could be lost.
Will that be a bad thing for India? Honestly, the answer is no. It is in
no one’s interest to legitimise, dignify and “normalise” India’s (or the
US’s) nuclear weapons. The route to real security lies in the reduction
and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. If a special
exception is made for India in the global nuclear order, that will have
a disastrous effect on future proliferation, not least in Iran,
Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, possibly Saudi Arabia, and even Japan. A
world crawling with more nuclear powers will be even more insecure. By
implementing the deal, India will have betrayed the Common Minimum
Programme’s promise to return to the global disarmament agenda.
Nuclear power is not the answer to India’s energy problems. Globally,
it’s unpopular and shrinking in its contribution to energy generation.
It’s expensive, and fraught with grave environmental and health hazards,
including the problem of containing hazardous radioactive wastes that
will seethe for thousands of years. High oil prices warrant not more
nuclear power, but investment in renewable energy and energy
conservation. India has already created a higher capacity in wind
generation than in nuclear electricity—without fuss or subsidies. She
can become global leader in wind and other renewables too.
The nuclear deal with the US will trap India in a bind. It will greatly
narrow her foreign policy freedom. The recent vote on Iran, and the
growing intimacy between India and Israel, are eloquent examples of the
peril of getting too close to the US on Washington’s terms—the more so
when the US is set to play an increasingly reckless and retrograde role
in the world. India should maintain a principled distance from the US.
Dr Kakodkar, despite his misguided logic, may have made a contribution
to that cause.
U.S. firms boosted their presence at Defexpo 06, this year’s version of
the biennial defense show its organizers call the largest in Asia. For the
first time, American firms sent more delegates and occupied more floor
space than any other country. Israel moved up to second place, pushing
Russia, traditionally India’s largest defense supplier, to third. Despite
the Jan. 31-Feb. 3 show’s announced theme of land and naval systems, much
of the conference buzz concerned the global competition for India’s $5
billion, 126-plane Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced an upcoming request for
proposals from potential competitors, which are expected to include the
Boeing F/A-18, Dassault’s Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed
Martin’s F-16, the MiG-29M2, the Mirage-2000-V and Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen.
In his keynote address, Mukherjee also said the government would soon
decide whether to buy hundreds of howitzers. The show, organized jointly
by the Defence Exhibition Organisation and the Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII), featured nearly 400 Indian and international exhibitions
from 25 countries. The number of international exhibitors increased from
112 to 187, and Indian exhibitors from 163 to 198. Seeking Partners
Mukherjee pushed India’s drive to find foreign partners for its local
defense firms. Since 2001, foreign defense companies have been allowed to
own up to 26 percent of such collaborations, but no major tie-ups have
been announced. “We want the defense production units to have a market
approach,” the defense minister said. “They should bring in the latest
technologies and develop state-of-the-art products for domestic use and
export.” State-owned Bharat Earth Movers is looking for partners for
manufacturing plants that make light armored four-wheel-drive
reconnaissance vehicles and the 155mm turret to be fitted on the Arjun
tank. “We will remain an aggressive player to develop an active private
defense industry in the country,” said Nilendra Nigam, the executive
president of construction firm-turned-defense contractor Larsen & Toubro.
Offsets Last July, India mandated that all purchases of defense equipment
worth more than $66.6 million must come with a 30 percent industrial
offset for state-owned or private Indian defense firms. Now the government
is considering requiring offsets on all lesser jobs as well, said S.
Banerjee, the Defense Ministry’s director-general for acquisition. Indian
companies are excited at the possible offsets, but many foreign officials
said India’s procure-ment process is cumbersome and its offset regulations
vague. Future IT Work Information technology firms are hungrily eyeing
plans by the Indian military to spend more than $4 billion on
communications and other networks in the next five to seven years. M.A.
Pathan, director of Tata Consultancy Services, said his firm wants $1
billion of that. Tata already has contracts to provide services for
transportation, air conditioning, manufacturing, security and
surveillance, electronics, personal armor and software. Giants at the Show
Leading armament firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Thales, EADS,
Rosoboronexport and Raytheon came to pitch their products and explore
collaborations. One joint project, inked two weeks ago and made known at
the show, was an agreement by Northrop Grumman and India’s Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) to find work for HAL in the E-2C Hawkeye program,
for example, by producing assemblies, components and related services.
Among the star attractions were the Raytheon AESA radar, which the United
States has promised to give India if it buys F-16s; Raytheon Patriot-3
missile defense systems; Atlas Elektronik’s Black Shark torpedoes; and
Tavor-21 assault rifles made by Israel Military Industries (IMI), which
are likely to be purchased by India’s newly formed special forces.
Lockheed Martin’s Hellfire and Javelin missiles were on display at Defexpo
for the first time. Boeing showcased its F/A-18 fighter, P-8A multimission
maritime aircraft, T-45 Goshawk jet trainer, AH-64D Apache Longbow attack
helicopter and CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter. The Indian Navy wants to
buy eight maritime patrol aircraft; the Army has long-term plans to buy
more than 150 multirole helicopters. The BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile,
jointly developed by India and Russia, was proudly displayed at the
entrance to the show. Russian Firms Russia, the largest supplier of
weapons and equipment to India for three decades, showed off several air
defense systems, such as the S-300PMU-2 Favorit and Antei-2500 mobile
multichannel long-range systems, and the Buk-M1-2 and Tor-M1 medium-range
systems. The Indian Army will issue a request for proposals this year to
buy unspecified numbers of short- and medium-range systems.
Rosoboronexport officials briefed Indian defense planners on the CLUB-M
multimode mobile smart onshore missile system equipped with 3M-14E, 3M-54E
and 3M-54E1 missiles, which can hit targets up to 300 kilometers away.
Israeli Efforts Israel, which trailed only the United States in total
floor space, showed unmanned aerial vehicles, precision munitions,
infantry weapons and gear. “We have a long-term approach towards India,
and [Israel Aircraft Industries] has already made huge investments in
India in the defense sector,” said IAI’s Josef Fishman, acting corporate
vice president for marketing and business development.
The latest decision by the big five countries, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to call for the IAEA to submit a report on Iran's nuclear energy activities and facilities to the UNSC lets the UPA government led by the Congress off the hook. Not only does it not have to confront the Left internally, it can now also hope that the Left falls quietly into line behind the Russians and the Chinese, who themselves have backtracked vis-à-vis the US on this issue. The Indian Left is trying to put a brave face on matters by pointing out that this is a collective decision to have the IAEA 'report' to the UNSC in a month's time and then depending on that report to take up the issue of possible sanctions. So a month's time has been bought and the issue of whether the UNSC will go in for sanctions still left open. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that the file on Iran is going to be referred, i.e., sent to the UNSC with the endorsement of the P-5 and its backers on the IAEA governing board. The UNSC like the IAEA can also be manipulated by the US. But unlike the IAEA the UNSC has powers of enforcement of whatever decision it subsequently or eventually arrives at, e.g., future imposition of sanctions.
The US Strategy
But before trying to assess its implications for India, one needs to start one's analysis from where one should always start - namely by first understanding the overall strategic perspective of the most powerful country, the US, within which the games that have been played over Iran by all comers, needs to be situated. The US is playing for huge stakes. In comparison, the Indian government is playing for very small stakes but pretending that these are much bigger stakes in order to justify its foreign policy stand in support of the US!
The US since the end of the Cold War has been seeking to establish a permanent global dominance, an informal global empire, or what some prefer to call a stable and enduring unipolarity. To achieve this it must achieve dominance over the strategically vital region of West Asia. This in turn means it has to reverse the greatest political-strategic defeat it suffered in this region, namely the overthrow of the former Shah of Iran and the establishment of a more intransigent clerical regime which for all its support to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (for its own reasons) is fundamentally independent and not suborned in its foreign policy to the US and has been and can be strongly opposed to certain US imperial ambitions and forms of behaviour. The aim of the US since the fall of the Shah in 1979 then, has been constant. Its problem has been how to go about undermining the Iranian regime and making it subordinate through regime change, if necessary. For a long time now the US has selectively opposed certain governments developing nuclear weapons.
But September 11, 2001 added a new dimension. It created an urgent determination on the part of Washington that from now on it was not just a question of not letting certain countries get the bomb but that even their capacity to make the bomb must be denied. Since this capacity is inseparable from the inherently dual-use nature of nuclear civilian energy production this had to mean US intervention to prevent complete control of the entire nuclear fuel cycle by some countries, above all Iran. But naturally enough not of countries like Germany, Japan, etc. who are non-nuclear signatories to the NPT but which have complete control over their respective nuclear fuel cycles and can, if they put their minds to it, make nuclear weapons much more quickly than Iran. Expert estimates suggest that it would take Iran several years, possibly a decade, to make the bomb after it takes such a decision, whereas Japan can make a bomb in a few months.
For decades this inherent contradiction within the NPT was not a serious concern of the US or of the other nuclear powers. For this whole period, the Indian government and its supporting elite only waxed eloquent about the "discriminatory" character of the NPT; not about the contradiction in the Treaty between using the 'carrot' of promoting nuclear energy production as the other side of the 'stick' that non-nuclear weapons powers should join the NPT and renounce acquisition of nuclear weapons. The only voices that for decades were repeatedly stressing this point were the voices of those in civil societies worldwide who opposed both nuclear weapons (whomsoever had them) and civilian nuclear energy development as a disaster in itself as well as being a way of keeping the nuclear option open because of its inescapable dual-use character. It was from the late eighties-early nineties that Europe and the US became more concerned about such dual-use capacities because of fears that North Korea, Libya and Iraq (all signatories to the NPT as non-nuclear states) might be taking advantage of this carrot to create the nuclear weapons option or even clandestinely exercise it. But it took September 11, 2001 to really crystallize US strategic thinking vis-à-vis Iran in this regard.
So now the US could outline a path to how it might fulfill its longer running strategic goal of undermining Iran. That path would require the following tasks to be accomplished: a) Carry out necessary doctrinal changes in the US's own security policies that can give it the flexibility to pre-emptively attack countries that the US considers a threat to its security. Thus preventive war against countries suspected of having or even wanting WMDs or of harbouring terrorists is to be justified by national policy. Such doctrinal changes were put in place after September 11, 2001 and before both the attack on Iraq and the game of diplomatically attacking Iran through and besides the IAEA. b) Suborn and manipulate the IAEA to push US perspectives. c) Publicly isolate Iran from the world community at large by concocting a case with some small measure of plausibility at least so that Iran could be presented as the 'principal wrongdoer' thereby diverting attention away from the US's own machinations and at the same time providing an excuse that governments already keen to side with the US could then use to justify such support. d) Just as the 2003 attack on Iraq was preceded by sanctions for many years which gravely weakened Iraq, similarly, before thinking of militarily attacking Iran in any way whether indirectly through Israel or directly by the US, Iran should be weakened and politically-diplomatically isolated by getting the UNSC to impose sanctions. To achieve this, France in the EU (and the EU itself) had to be brought on board as well as the all-important countries of Russia and China who have the power of vetoing against UNSC sanctions.
The second and third tasks have not proved that difficult because of two main reasons. The first reason why this is so is because the IAEA leadership has exhibited a fundamental moral and political dishonesty and lack of courage while a host of countries including India have been fully prepared to accept the dishonest rabble-rousing and hypocritical posturing of the US and its cohorts, wherein the US decides who can or cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons or even just the capacity to make them. The second reason, and by far the much more minor contributor to the current state of affairs, is the Iranian regime's past record (before 2003) of not providing the IAEA a full account of its nuclear energy related facilities. By best and most sober inference, the reason for this was not that Iran had taken a decision to make the bomb but that it wished to keep its nuclear weapons option open and was prepared to hold out information from the IAEA in this respect. But after the discovery of its failure to account for all such activities in 2002 Iran not only moved towards full compliance with all IAEA requests for information and monitoring but it also accepted the Additional Protocol giving the IAEA even greater access in this regard. It did not ratify this Protocol and may now, after the latest decision to 'report' it to the UNSC, rescind its application and end its current cooperation with the IAEA in this regard.
The Real Facts
The Indian media for the most part has shamelessly toed the Indian government's line on this issue and therefore so distorted, misrepresented or hidden the true facts of the case that it is incumbent here to spell out the actual and indisputable facts of the matter, to make clear what is known and not what is merely surmised or imputed.
1) After three years of comprehensive investigations by all sources including the IAEA no one has shown that Iran has an actual nuclear weapons programme, past or present.
2) Iran has not enriched uranium to anywhere near the high level that is required to make it weapons usable.
3) Most key outstanding issues between the Iranian government and the IAEA have been resolved. As per the IAEA's own November 2004 report all declared nuclear materials in Iran have been accounted for and confirmed as not diverted to prohibited activities.
4) The IAEA is not in a position to conclude whether or not Iran has any undeclared materials, activities or facilities that might be used for weapons making. There is no evidence of this so far and therefore there is no justification for assuming or imputing that this is the case. To reach a broader and final conclusion in this regard will be a time-consuming process during which Iran will have to cooperate with the IAEA in answering and explaining the following queries (i) Iran's past work on P-1 and P-2 centrifuges; (ii) some nuclear contaminants that have been found; (iii) past experiments with plutonium and polonium; (iv) fuller details about Iran's effort between 1987 and late 1990s to obtain materials and plans for setting up a full-scale enrichment plant, something of course that cannot be legally denied to it as an NPT signatory. This includes possible ties between Iran and the A.Q. Khan network. Other countries like Pakistan with which the Khan network has had dealings are not being asked by the IAEA or anyone else to make full disclosure of such dealings. Nor is anyone demanding disclosure of various secret dealings involving various nuclear weapons states and other states whereby the latter have developed either nuclear weapons capabilities or nuclear weapons. Of this there is a long history. Every one of the 8 nuclear weapons powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan) in this respect have been either providers or recipients or both.
5) The IAEA has had to make similar time-consuming investigations to clear other non-nuclear NPT signatories like Japan and Canada and took five and six years respectively to carry this out. There are a number of EU countries for which the IAEA is still in no position to arrive at such a broader conclusion. However, it is only Iran that is being pressured in the way that it is. It is only in the case of Iran that the IAEA is accepting being hustled by the US and EU-3 in this way.
6) While Iran accepted and went along with the Additional Protocols, 26 of 71 states with significant nuclear activities do not have such Additional Protocols in force.
7) In the past Iran was in non-compliance with its safeguards agreement with the IAEA in not having reported certain facilities, namely the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories (JHL), the Esfahan Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP), the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) and Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), and the Arak Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR- 40). All have been brought under safeguards and Iran's past non-compliance has been fully rectified and this has been duly noted in the IAEA reports since.
8) Numerous other officially non-nuclear countries e.g., Brazil, South Africa, have more advanced uranium enrichment programmes than Iran. None of them have been subject to the kind of pressure the US and its allies are imposing on Iran. Nor has the IAEA seen fit to behave in the same way with regard to these other countries nor in those cases made any reports in the kind of carefully worded language that in the case of Iran can create 'uncertainties' that can then be used by the US for its purposes.
9) Since El Baradei's visit to Iran in 2003 Tehran has given the IAEA 1500 person days of on-site inspections as well as access to military sites that it is under no obligation to provide. This has been a voluntarily given access that goes beyond its formal obligations.
10) The Iranian government has declared that it has the right under all its legal obligations to have full control over its nuclear fuel cycle - which is completely correct - and has declared that this control will come under IAEA safeguards, which is also the proper legal position.
11) The EU-3 had promised in return for the voluntary and temporary suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activities from November 2004 to come up with a package of economic incentives and security assurances that could be traded off against Iranian concessions in regard to the matter of its having full control of its nuclear fuel cycle. It is the EU that reneged on this promise by bending to the US and ultimately refusing to give any security assurances to Iran.
12) All of the countries of the Arab League and also Iran have long declared themselves in favour of the immediate establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons. The only country in the region that refuses to accept this proposal is Israel, which insists that this must wait (however long it may take) for a final peace settlement in the Middle East of the kind that Israel would accept. In this shameful filibustering Israel is, of course, supported fully by the US.
Unwilling To Stand Up
With the EU (and France) in the bag and El Baradei more than willing to go along with such US manipulation of the IAEA the most important task of the US was to get Russia and China on board since both countries have significant energy-related relations with Iran. Baradei, incidentally, is reported as having applauded the India-US nuclear deal, that not only violates the existing laws of the international non-proliferation regime but aims to publicly and universally legitimize the nuclear status of India. This is extraordinary, coming as it does from a person who claims to be against nuclear weapons and its further proliferation and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The most important aspect of the latest development at the beginning of February 2006 is that Russia and China have agreed to the referral of the Iran case to the UNSC. One does not know yet of what the behind-the-scenes discussion between them and the US and EU were, but some combination of benefits and costs must have been put forward to persuade them.
The idea that these two countries will somehow prevent the actual imposition of sanctions should the US desire it by exercising their veto power in the UNSC must now be deemed more remote. It is much more likely that if push comes to shove later on in the UNSC, that Russia and China will abstain. They have boxed themselves into accepting a procedure that they should never have accepted. The Russian proposal for uranium enrichment by Iran on Russian territory would of course deny Iran full national control of its nuclear fuel cycle, which is its right. As such it gives legitimacy to the illegitimate Western pressure on Iran and makes Iran out to be the unreasonable party that is unwilling to compromise in the 'wider interest'. That wider interest is of course a US-led imperial expansion of its power to which any number of governments and their supporting elites are willing to bend. Thus the Russians and the Chinese have placed themselves in a situation whereby if Iran refuses to accept the Russian proposal then these two governments will in the logic of things find themselves having to say that Iran did not 'compromise' and thereby legitimize US-led initiatives of what the UNSC should now consider doing to 'punish' a supposedly recalcitrant Iran. It is as well to remember that neither Russia nor China made the running but hid behind France when it came to preventing a UNSC endorsement of the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and that all three later buckled under in accepting a subsequent UN Resolution endorsing and legitimising the actual occupation of Iraq by the US.
Iran is willing to consider the Russian proposal up to a point, i.e., even possibly accept uranium enrichment there. But it insists that its scientific personnel be involved in the activity in Russia. This is something that the EU (and behind it the US) is not willing to accept because though it is eminently reasonable that Iranian personnel master the technology that is to help it run its own sovereign nuclear energy generation prgramme. This is because such skill acquisition is inherently dual use in character. What it comes back to is that the US wants to go to any extreme to have an excuse to put the squeeze on Iran in consonance with its wider ambitions, which go beyond the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons-making prospects. The US has not made up its mind that it must soon enough attack Iran. What it is aiming at is to move steadily along its strategic path, which requires it to clear all obstacles so that it can get the UNSC to impose sanctions whenever it wants it to. If it does move in this direction then it will wait and see the reaction to such sanctions as it can get. These Iranian reactions will also take place in Iraq. The US will then weigh its options, see the overall relationship of forces in order to judge whether and when and how it should further squeeze Iran including the possibility of attacking it militarily (perhaps via Israel) or somehow cause the downfall of the regime. In short, the future remains open-ended even in regard to the issue of the US actually attacking Iran. There are simply too many imponderables. But what should not be in doubt is that the US is determined to move along this strategic path so that it can act in this way in the future.
The Indian Situation
The Indian government and its supporting elites have every reason now to be grateful. In the larger scheme of things they were smaller fry, despite the US putting pressure on the Indian government to support it in the IAEA. The key for the US was to get Russia and China on board. Now this Indian government can simply and happily hide behind this turn of events and tell itself and everybody else that it is in its interest to support the US because the big two of Russia and China are going in this direction or at least not obstructing the US plans vis-à-vis Iran. In effect, the relative inconsequentiality of India makes its easier for the government to behave more supinely before the US and to claim at the same time that it is not doing so under US pressure. The US is getting what it wants from governments. It knows that in order for it to establish its global dominance it must make sure there is no serious opposition to it from significant powers and to ensure this, must tie them up in arrangements including formal and informal alliance structures that can sustain its overall hegemony. It knows what it needs to secure its unipolar dominance - it must prevent the emergence of a genuine multipolarity. It is more than delighted if an Indian government and its supporting elites can convince themselves that the best way for India to grow strong and the best way for a multipolar world to emerge is through support for the unipolar ambitions and plans of the US!
What about the official Indian Left led by the CPM and CPI? The question before them is whether they are prepared to recognise the clear betrayal of the cause of fighting US-led imperialism by Russia and China in this case and the general wishy-washyness of these two countries that are anything but serious pillars of resistance to US global ambitions. Will this Indian Left take its distance from these two countries and what they have done vis-à-vis this issue of Iran? Or will it now be much more subdued? The Congress-led UPA government clearly thinks the latter and believes it has weathered the internal storm on this score at least. But whatever the official Left decides to do, for all those who are committed to fighting consistently for justice and against US Empire-building the political positions that need to be adopted should be clear. They are as follows:
1. Oppose and unremittingly expose the unfairness of, and the US purposes behind, the whole Iranian-IAEA nuclear imbroglio.
2. Oppose any and every country going in for nuclear energy. This must be done not only for reasons related to alternative and superior forms of energy production but because as long as civilian nuclear energy programmes are around one is creating the potential for nuclear weapons programmes to also emerge.
3. As a transitional measure, demand complete transparency for all nuclear energy programmes everywhere and not just for Iran or selectively for some countries. That is to say, demand the formulation of an international or multilateral treaty for full transparency in all aspects of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle for all countries having such programmes, including all nuclear weapons states. These countries may still be able to retain their nuclear weapons or further develop them. But there is no reason why their civilian programmes should be able to get away without revealing all their activities and information, even if unlike non-nuclear NPT signatories they are not legally prevented from transferring fuel from civilian reactors for military purposes. Nuclear powers that are not signatories to the NPT like India, Pakistan and Israel must also abide by such an international or multilateral treaty of transparency for their civilian programmes. Such a Treaty must have a truly impartial monitoring body like that in the CTBT. This cannot of course be the existing IAEA.
4. Put this dishonest Indian government and its supporting elites under pressure. This lot claims that it is not in India's interest to have another nuclear neighbour. These very elites justified India's acquisition of nuclear weapons in the name of security, indeed citing China as a threat. But India never ever faced the kind or level of security threat and pressure that Iran is facing today - from the US and an Israel that openly threatens to bomb Iran's nuclear reactors. In brief, India certainly has no moral right to tell any other country not to acquire nuclear weapons because they endanger the neighbourhood when it is responsible for endangering its own neighbourhood by what it did in 1998 and by doing so push Pakistan to also carry out nuclear tests and become another nuclear power in the region. At that time, knowing that Indian tests would push Pakistan to replicate, this Indian nuclear elite was claiming that having Pakistan as a nuclear neighbour would actually be a good thing, helping to stabilise the region politically and militarily! None of this should be taken to mean that Iran should have nuclear weapons or that its right to have them should be endorsed. The best way to put this Indian nuclear elite under some kind of moral-political pressure and to expose its obsequiousness in relation to the US and Israel is to demand of it that if it is so worried about another nuclear neighbour emerging then it should throw its weight behind the call for the immediate establishment of a Middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons or of all weapons of mass destruction. And that if it wants to be taken at its word that not having a nuclear neighbour is in its 'national interest' then it must attack and expose the hypocrisy and deceits of Israel and the US, which countries are the biggest obstacles to such a zone emerging.
5. Oppose nuclear weapons whichever country has them and endorse the movement towards such disarmament by striving to realize forms of denuclearization that are regional and global as well as opposing all avenues that lead to a development of nuclear weapons quantitatively or qualitatively. Thus one must strive for a universally applied CTBT; and for the drawing up of a Fissile Materials Treaty (FMT) that would put limits on production and eliminate stockpiles of fissile materials usable for making nuclear weapons. One must support efforts to establish a South Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as well support other such regional disarmament initiatives. One must also oppose the BMD-TMD (Ballistic Missile Defence and Theatre Missile Defence) projects of the US, its hypocritical and selective Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), its development of battlefield nuclear weapons and of third and fourth generation weapons. The Indian government basking in the glow of being called a "responsible nuclear power" by the most vicious and irresponsible nuclear power in the world -- the US -- will not of course do any of these things. Which is why pressure must be put on it from activists and concerned citizens in Indian society to take up these responsibilities. It would be good if the official Indian Left would also lend its stature and weight to all these efforts.
Despite cravenly voting against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency a week ago-in keeping with Washington's demands-, India has not ensured that the far-reaching "nuclear cooperation" agreement it signed last July will be finalised before President George W. Bush's visit to the subcontinent in early March. Late last month, US ambassador David Mulford threatened India with "devastating" consequences if it didn't vote against Iran. Disclaimers notwithstanding, India fell in line.
Yet, the chances of the deal going through have receded after Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar detonated a bombshell on Monday, when he publicly accused Washington of shifting "the goalpost" on the deal.
Kakodkar confirmed that the principal differences between the two sides pertain to the separation of military nuclear facilities from civilian ones, so the latter can be placed under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The sharpest divergence is about including India's fledging fast-breeder reactor (FBR) programme in the civilian facilities list.
The US wants FBRs in that list because they (theoretically) generate more fissile material than they consume, and are a potential source of weapons-grade plutonium. India would like to keep them out of the inspections regime.
India earlier claimed that the FBR programme is essential for power generation and energy security. Now, Kakodkar says FBRs are essential "for maintaining the minimum credible deterrent". To that FBR-centred security calculus, he has added sovereignty: the determination of which facilities are civilian and which are military "has to be made by the Indians…" India's strategic interests must be decided by Indians alone.
Kakodkar's statement, made without prior authorisation from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), has clearly raised the stakes in the talks between New Delhi and Washington. He obviously knew this would complicate matters and impel Washington's policy-makers to harden their positions too.
In fact, he seems to have chosen this sensitive stage in the negotiation process because he wanted to hit back at his detractors who have orchestrated a media campaign to mount pressure on New Delhi to quickly finalise the July 18 deal on Washington's terms. They want it to ignore the "isolationist", "outdated" lobby of "reactionary" nuclear scientists.
Kakodkar's interview was clearly calculated to press Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to stick to the first civilian facilities list which India recently forwarded to the Americans. FBRs were excluded from this, along with all facilities at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai, the uranium enrichment plant near Mysore, and at least two nuclear power reactors.
Kakodkar's insistence that India stick to the original proposal, and the hostile media reaction to him from his detractors, suggest a serious division in the Indian Establishment over how the nuclear deal is to be implemented. India's policy-makers and -shapers are split between the "ultra-nationalists" (who see the agreement as capitulation to American pressure to cap India's nuclear capabilities), and the "pro-US pragmatists", who too are nuclear hawks.
There is also a third current, the growing peace movement, which opposes the deal not because it limits India's "sovereignty" (itself a questionable concept as regards mass-destruction weapons), but because it legitimises nuclear weapons, consolidates a US-India strategic alliance, promotes the wrong energy path, and encourages proliferation.
What explains the Establishment split and Kakodkar's extreme step of going public? How will that change the outcome of the Indo-US talks? Will India gain or lose on military and energy security if the agreement falls through?
The first "ultra-nationalist" group comprises a majority of India's nuclear and defence scientists-engineers and reflects the culture of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), which has always been pampered despite its poor performance. The DAE has gobbled up thousands of crores of public money to deliver a pitiful 2.5 percent of India's electricity-with a host of occupational and environmental safety problems.
The DAE has borrowed/bought technology from the UK, US, Canada, USSR, Russia, China, even Norway. But it loathes international safeguards. In general, it resists any accountability, domestic or international. It was dragged, kicking and screaming, into endorsing the July 18 nuclear deal. It's now wreaking its revenge.
The "pro-US pragmatists" believe that India should sign on the dotted line to get legitimised as a nuclear weapons-state and strengthen the US-India strategic alliance even it that means compromising on India's foreign policy options. Like many in the Pakistan establishment, they believe that joining the US bandwagon is the best shortcut to Great Power status.
This group has suddenly discovered the virtues of nuclear electricity. It always knew that the deal won't be strictly equal-although Singh promised the opposite in a Parliament statement. To win Congressional approval for the deal, India would have to satisfy Washington that the civilian-military separation is "credible" and "defensible". To facilitate this, the "pragmatists" campaigned for an IAEA vote against Iran.
The DAE wrongly presents FBRs as the gateway to energy security. FBRs are not a proved technology. They have been a failure everywhere, including in France, the world's fast-breeder "leader". However, the DAE has a trump card in the text of the deal, which says the civilian-military separation would be "voluntary" and "phased." In reality, it's turning out to be nothing of the sort.
Kakodkar has capitalised on the text and tried to checkmate the PMO! He knows Manmohan Singh cannot sack him without attracting the charge of acting under US pressure.
It's likely that the US will accept exclusion of FBRs from the civilian list. FBRs are an open-ended source of plutonium for both civilian and military purposes. If India has raised the stakes on FBRs, so can the US.
A beleaguered President Bush, whose acceptance ratings have plummeted to barely 40 percent, is unlikely to summon the political will to push the deal through if FBRs are excluded. The deal is unlikely to go through before his visit. If it's not finalised soon, the momentum could be lost altogether.
That won't be a bad thing for India. It's in no one's interest to legitimise and "normalise" India's (or Pakistan's, the US's, or anyone's) nuclear weapons. Real security lies in the their worldwide elimination. If a special exception is made for India in the global nuclear order, that will heighten the proliferation danger, not least in Iran, Israel, North Korea, and possibly Saudi Arabia. A world crawling with more nuclear powers will be even more insecure.
Nuclear power is not the answer to India's (or Pakistan's) energy problems. Globally, it's shrinking in its contribution to energy generation. It's expensive, and fraught with grave environmental and health hazards, including the problem of containing wastes that will remain radioactive for thousands of years. High oil prices don't warrant more nuclear power, but higher investment in renewable energy and energy conservation.
The nuclear deal will trap India in a bind, while greatly narrowing her policy freedom. The vote on Iran, and the growing intimacy between India and Israel, are eloquent examples of the peril of getting too close to the US on Washington's terms. This is so especially because the US is set to play a reckless and retrograde role in the world.
India should maintain a principled distance from the US. Kakodkar, despite his misguided logic, may have unintentionally made a contribution to that.
France will take back asbestos from a decommissioned warship heading for
an Indian ship-breaking yard if New Delhi asks, France’s ambassador said
Feb. 8. ”Our commitment is total and we’re prepared to take back the
asbestos which will be removed from the ship ... if Indian authorities so
desire,” Dominique Girard told reporters after touring the Alang yard in
western Gujarat state. ”We will abide by the decision of the Indian
government and the Indian courts. It’s out of the question to force our
way into India.” The immediate fate of the vessel Clemenceau depends on a
decision February 13 by India’s Supreme Court on whether to allow it into
Indian waters. Environmental groups say the warship, to be salvaged for
steel, is full of asbestos and other toxic chemicals and poses a danger to
Alang’s workers. France says the vessel carries 45 tons of cancer-causing
asbestos insulation but the firm, which partially decontaminated it before
the trip, says the amount is between 500 and 1,000 tons. Girard said there
was no “plan B” if the Indian authorities did not allow the Clemenceau to
head to India. Girard said France was sending its own experts to India and
would closely monitor the health of the around 45 Alang workers expected
to dismantle the 27,000-tonne vessel. ”The people (in charge) have a very
clear vision of how they will be doing things,” he added. ”On the specific
question of workers’ health, they have good records ... and they will be
even stronger now with French partners. It will be followed up in watching
the health of individual workers.” Greenpeace spokesman Ramapati Kumar
dismissed Girard’s assurances. ”Our reaction is very simple — the whole
transaction of the Clemenceau is illegal and immoral. We doubt the ability
(technical expertise) of the ship-breaking yards of Alang will improve
overnight.” Meanwhile, an 11-member court-appointed Indian environmental
watchdog body was split over whether to allow the warship to be dismantled
in India and has submitted two reports to the Supreme Court, members said.
”Seven said ‘Yes,’ three said ‘No’ and one was absent and hence two
reports reflecting both views went to the Supreme Court,” scientist Claude
Alvares, a group member, said by telephone from Mapusa, a western Indian
coastal resort. The commission had complained Monday it was still awaiting
information from Paris on the amount of asbestos aboard the warship.
Girard said documents should be with Indian officials by late Thursday.
”We didn’t want to give them fake documents,” he said. “We have the maps
but not the quantities. We will be trying to get as close as possible.
Staff at the yard said India’s ship-breaking industry was equipped to
handle hazardous material. ”We have to do regular checks of our staff
every six months and we have found no lung or any other health problem for
10 or 15 years,” said Girish Luthra, chairman of the company responsible
for the clean-up. The Alang yard has suffered a massive downturn since
2003 and Indian officials said scrapping the ship would give employment to
hundreds of workers. Workers at the yard unfurled a banner saying:
“Greenpeace Go Back” during Girard’s visit. Environmental groups say Paris
is dumping its toxic waste on the Third World. They have called on India
to stop the vessel from landing, accusing France of breaching a 1989
convention banning export of toxic waste.
Washington (AFP) Feb 08, 2006
US President George W. Bush on Wednesday waived restrictions on exports to
Pakistan, saying it would ease the democratic transition in the South
Asian nation and help combat terrorism.
In a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush said he was easing
prohibitions under the Appropriations Act, which targets countries where a
democratically elected government has been overturned by a coup, according
to a White House statement.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf grabbed power in a bloodless coup in
October 1999, named himself president in June 2001 and was elected to a
five-year term in a controversial election in April 2002.
Bush said the waiver would "facilitate the transition to democratic rule
in Pakistan" and is "important to United States efforts to respond to,
deter or prevent acts of international terrorism," according to the
statement.
"Accordingly, I hereby waive, with respect to Pakistan, the prohibition
contained" in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, Bush told Rice, asking her to inform Congress
about the change.
Following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States,
Washington passed broad legislation waiving restrictions on US arms
exports and military assistance to Pakistan and India.
These countries were sanctioned following nuclear tests in May 1998, and
additional sanctions were levied against Pakistan when Musharraf launched
the coup.
US-Pakistani ties have improved considerably since Musharraf made a key
decision after the 2001 attacks to back Washington's ouster of
Afghanistan's radical Taliban regime, which had supported the terror group
Al-Qaeda.
The United States regards Pakistan as a non-NATO ally, a designation given
to close friends.
French President Jacques Chirac will soon be in India on a state visit.
The District 93 Federation of the French Communist Party considers such
relation-building to be of the utmost importance, knowing how long this
great nation of Asia has been ignored by successive governments of our
country. But today we must ask : "Going to India, for what?"
Our relations with India have been tarnished by the tragic "Affaire
Clemenceau" : this French aircraft carrier, stuffed with dangerous
cancer-causing asbestos, is on its way to its grave in Gujarat. The port
of Alang there is a place where not just ships, but men too, are trashed
and pushed to their graves. Conditions of work and safety are a picture
of horror, wages are shameful, toxic waste and pollution is everywhere.
India has lately been in the headlines for another reason too :
L'affaire Mittal Steel, where the hostile bid to gobble "our own"
Arcelor giant was turned by French leaders into a xenophobic anti-Indian
campaign, drawing the attention of both French and Indian workers away
from the real issue -- democratic control over industry in the context
of a rat-race between capitalist raiders for the quickest profit.
This is the ugly face of globalization as they understand it, provoking
rivalry and competition between the poor and the poorer, even in India,
all to the advantage of rich raiders.
What a shameful loss of face and wealth for France ! The French
authorities are packing off our own dangerous poison for treatment in a
developing country. Knowing full well that it is here in France that we
have developed the the safest know-how concerning the treatment and
disposal of asbestos, they have chosen to dump this poison callously
onto a country which hardly offers state-of-the-art safety to workers
dismantling asbestos, indeed ordinary safety measures even in other
fields of industry.
The real aim of Chirac's visit is to sell French goods. And what is our
chief sales manager taking to India in his glossy catalogue ? A range of
sophisticated French armament, which will immediately push Pakistan to
buy more of the same, to ensure a balance of terror.
Is this what the people of India and Pakistan need ? Or would they
rather have durable peace and friendship amongst neighbours? What is
urgent is a political settlement between the two. And, after the recent
catastrophes - tsunami, earthquake - humanitarian aid and cooperation
should be the priority. Do the Kashmiris need our killer Mirages and
Rafales, or rather French medical know-how and other relevant skills?
Millions of Indians and Pakistanis living in poverty would have
employment, health and education higher on their list than French
instruments of death and horror.
The PCF 93 Federation calls upon President Chirac to open a new chapter
in Franco-Indian relations, built around education and culture, health
and ecology, cooperation and sustainable development, to replace the
relationship until now preferred by our cynical leaders, where military
encounters are preferred, whereas it is the cultural encounters that the
citizens of Europe and Asia eagerly await.
Pantin, 6th February, 2006
French Communist Party (Federation 93)
14, rue Victor Hugo 93500 PANTIN
India has moved out 5,000 troops from Kashmir following an ebb in
militancy in the disputed territory, Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee
said Feb. 6, insisting however it was not a withdrawal. The troops would
be sent back to the divided state if violence again escalates, Mukherjee
said on the sidelines of a military conference in New Delhi. "It is not
withdrawal but redeployment of forces from Jammu and Kashmir to the
northeastern (states) as (the) violence level has come down," he said.
Mukherjee insisted the withdrawal was a "routine exercise" and dismissed
suggestions that it was a gesture ahead of a planned visit to India by
U.S. President George W. Bush next month. "The redeployment is a regular
exercise undertaken after review of the situation in the state and last
year we reduced troops voluntarily," Mukherjee said. Military sources told
AFP that at least 6,000 combat troops were pulled out of Kashmir in 2005.
Up to 400,000 combat forces are deployed along the borders of Kashmir,
which is claimed both by India and Pakistan. Islamabad earlier this month
asked New Delhi to de-militarize three Kashmiri towns to add momentum to
their two-year old peace process. India and Pakistan have fought two of
their three wars since 1947 over Kashmir and came dangerously close to a
fourth conflict in 2002 after an attack by gunmen on the Indian parliament
which New Delhi said was sponsored by Islamabad. However, a peace process
started two years ago has seen the re-launch of transport links between
the two countries, including in Kashmir, and has reduced tension in the
Himalayan territory. More than 44,000 people have died in
insurgency-linked violence in Kashmir since 1989 when Islamist guerrillas
launched an anti-Indian rebellion in the disputed zone.
NEW DELHI --- Some of the world's leading weapons manufacturers have
participated in a defense exhibition in India. The companies are eager for
a share of a major market - India is one of the world's biggest importers
of arms.
More than 400 companies from 38 countries, including Britain, France, the
United States, Israel, South Africa and Russia, showcased their wares at a
four-day defense show held in the Indian capital over the past several
days. Taking part were leading manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin,
Boeing and Rolls Royce.
The companies are eyeing India's massive defense budget, which has been
rising steadily as the country modernizes its outdated hardware. In 2004
India was the developing world's leading buyer of conventional weapons,
spending nearly $6 billion on arms purchases.
Rahul Bedi of Jane's Defense Weekly says over the next two to three years
India will spend billions of dollars more on an array of defense equipment
ranging from fighter jets to missile production systems.
"It is looking at acquiring 126 multi-role aircraft, which is a contract
worth anywhere between $7 and $9 billion; it is looking to buy submarines
from Russia; it is looking to buy artillery from various competitive
sources…; it is looking to buy a range of equipment in all the three
services; so it is really poised for a huge explosion," said Bedi.
Much of Indian defense hardware still comes from Russia - a traditional
arms supplier to New Delhi since the days of the Cold War.
But Israel has been catching up rapidly, almost doubling its market share
in the last three years with sales worth nearly $3 billion. France and
Britain have also made steady inroads into the Indian defense market.
U.S. manufacturers were well represented at the New Delhi exhibition.
Defense experts say aviation companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing are
vying for a massive contract for combat aircraft.
Rahul Bedi says the American share of the Indian market has been small so
far, but that could change as relations between the two countries improve
steadily.
"There is an inherent mistrust of buying equipment from the U.S. because
of the possibility of sanctions being imposed in case it contravenes
American law… But the Americans and Indians are working on this trust
deficit, and they are trying to develop a relationship, because by 2015
the American arms industry wants about 15 to 20 percent of basic Indian
military hardware to be of American origin, and they are pushing very
aggressively into the Indian market," added Bedi.
India is also inviting foreign defense companies to form joint ventures in
the country. Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee told exhibition
participants that India wants to manufacture state-of-the-art defense
equipment in collaboration with overseas companies both to export and to
supply the Indian armed forces.
In a rare 'no' to Washington, the Indian Navy has called off the leasing of two US Navy P-3C Orion maritime reconnaissance aircraft (MRA) on grounds they are too expensive.
The 18-24 months it would take the US Navy to retrofit the two aircraft to the Indian Navy specifications once the lease had been finalised also contributed to New Delhi opting out of the deal.
"The lease (of two P-3C Orions) is timed out. It was expensive and time-consuming," a senior Indian official associated with the lease negotiations said.
The US Navy is believed to have demanded Rs8 billion for the lease via the foreign military sales programme.
Fear of US sanctions, like the ones imposed following India's 1998 nuclear tests that led to the Indian Navy's entire Sea King MK42 fleet being grounded due to a shortage of spares, also influenced the navy's decision, officials indicated.
Sanctions on India -- and Pakistan for its nuclear tests -- were lifted in late 2001.
India's P-3C Orion lease was to be a precursor to purchasing eight others to augment its reconnaissance requirements which the navy presently considers "highly inadequate" for anti-piracy operations, narcotics control and to counter natural and ecological disasters like tsunami's or oil and chemical spills.
In anticipation, P-3C Orion manufacturers Lockheed Martin had signed a non-disclosure technical assistance agreement with Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd in Bangalore last year to share export controlled data related to technical and commercial proposals to retrofit the MRAs to the Indian Navy's requirements.
The Indian Navy has now sent out to MRA manufacturers in the US, France, Britain and Russia a request for proposals for the outright purchase of eight MRAs.
These will replace a similar number of Tupolev Tu 142 'Bear Foxtrot' MRAs that are being retired after negotiations with Russia and Israel to retrofit them were called off three years ago.
The Indian Navy confirmed that it was also involved in exploratory talks with Boeing Corp for possible involvement in the P-8A MMA it is developing based on the Boeing 737NG platform.
The Indian Navy believes that the P-8A would match the combined operational profile presently being executed by its existing fleet of Ilyushin Il-38 and Tu 142 MRAs.
It also considers its involvement in the Boeing MMA programme an 'evaluation' and 'test' of Washington's long-term military and strategic commitment to India and a possible counter to possible future sanctions.
Washington considers the Indian Navy a stabilising force in the Indian Ocean region and wants a closer working relationship with it as it straddles the strongest area of strategic convergence: sea-lane protection.
The US is also keen that the Indian Navy, which has a formidable presence in the Indian Ocean region, to officially join the Washington-led proliferation security initiative (PSI) which seeks to interdict vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction and associated equipment.
Meanwhile, the Indian Navy last month received the first of its five Il-38 MRAs upgraded to the Il-38 SD standard and equipped with the Morskoi Amei (Sea Dragon) radar system compatible with the navy's proposed strategic deterrence.
The remaining four similarly upgraded MRAs will be delivered to the Indian Navy by early next year. Two of these aircraft are replacements being provided by Rosonboronexport for the ones that crashed in October 2002.
Currently, the Indian Navy is dependent on its fleet of around 20 Dornier 228 aircraft and Israeli Searcher Mark II and Heron unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor India's 7,516-km long coastline, 1,197 islands and a two-million sq km exclusive economic zone.
India's most powerful nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range of about 3,500 km is ready to be launched.
A decision on its first test will have to be taken by the Government, the country's top defence scientist said on Friday.
Referring to the Agni-III missile, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) chief M Natarajan said: "We have done all the technical tasks for a project of this nature."
"But when it will be fired, how it will be fired, and where it will be fired is a decision that has to be taken at a higher level," Natarajan said at the Defexpo 2006 arms fair.
Two other versions of the indigenously developed Agni missile - one with a range of 700 km and the other with a range of 2,500 km - have already entered service with the Indian armed forces.
It is believed the DRDO had completed preparations for firing the Agni-III - which is expected to have a range of about 3,500 km - almost a year ago and has been awaiting the green light from the political establishment to test it.
The Agni-III will be capable of carrying a one-tonne conventional or nuclear warhead. It will be propelled by solid fuels, facilitating swifter deployment compared to missiles using a mix of solid and liquid fuels.
DRDO has developed extensive expertise in launching long-range missiles from mobile and railway launchers. This allows the missiles to be scattered all over India before being moved to a launch site by road or rail.
Defence experts said it was unlikely that India would test the missile ahead of US President George W Bush's visit to India next month, in view of the political sensitivities involved with the issue.
The Agni series of ballistic missiles are the most advanced projectiles developed under India's integrated guided missile development programme that began in 1983.
Natarajan, who is also scientific advisor to the defence minister, said: "We wanted to be at a position where technically we can feel confident, and we have reached that."
The DRDO chief also disclosed that his organisation was involved in giving final shape to a low-cost but effective missile defence system.
"It is not possible to give details but progress has been satisfactory with its components," he said.
Certain technologies for the system meant to protect major cities and vital installations from enemy missile attacks had been developed through the indigenous missile programme and DRDO's work on advanced sensors, Natarajan said.
"We have to see how to build on these technologies and once we reach a threshold level, we can conceptualise the missile defence system," he said.
"The Akash missile programme has achieved success and the (missile defence system) will be a multiplication of the capabilities of the Akash."
India announced Feb. 3 it had completed all tests and was ready to deploy
its latest nuclear-tipped missile, capable of striking targets at a
distance of 3,000 kilometers (1,860 miles). "All technical parameters for
the launch of the missile have been completed," M. Natarajan announced at
a news conference in New Delhi. "We are ready for the launch today... it
is now for political leadership to give the nod," Natarajan said of the
Indian-built missile codenamed Agni-III (Fire). Agni-III is the longest
range missile of its type and can carry a one-ton conventional or nuclear
warhead. Delhi in 1993 began testing basic variants of the Agni, but
shelved the experiments for two years ostensibly under U.S. pressure. The
flight-tests resumed after India conducted a series of nuclear weapons
tests in 1998. Natarajan, who heads the Defense Research and Development
organization (DRDO) comprising dozens of state-owned industries and
military research facilities, said scientists were also trying to develop
a 1,000-kilometre range cruise missile. The chief scientist also announced
that a naval variant of the 300-kilometre range BrahMos cruise missile,
which has been jointly developed by India and Russia, was ready for
deployment. "The ship-launched missile is ready for deployment and is
currently going through user trial with navy and army," Natarajan said,
but declined to confirm reports the DRDO was also working on a
submarine-fired BrahMos. The official said the DRDO had made "tremendous
progress" on an anti-missile shield for which India is currently
negotiating with the United States, Russia and Israel. India in 1983
launched its integrated guided missile development program and so far has
built an array of systems including the battlefield missile Prithvi
(Earth) which can carry a 500-kilogram nuclear warhead and other tactical
missiles. Natarajan said that India was plagued by growing shortages of
military scientists. "As against the need for a minimum of 100,000 design
engineers, we are making do with just 6,000 of them in the DRDO and this
will come in the way of development of future missile and space weapons,"
he said.
Moscow, Feb 03: In an estimated USD 300 million deal, Belarus is to buy 18
second-hand Sukhoi SU-30k fighters from India for the modernisation of the
aging Air Force of this former Soviet Republic.
According to influential financial daily "Vedomosti", 18 SU-30k fighters
with limited capabilities were supplied to the Indian Air Force in 1997-98
at the initial stage of USD 4.9 billion Sukhoi deal for the development of
a multi-role warbird SU-30MKI specially tailored for its specific
requirements.
Cash-strapped Belarus would modernise the SU-30k jets to the su-30kn at
its facilities with the help of "Russkaya Avionika" (Russian Avionics)
company, a subsidiary of original manufacturer "Irkut" corporation.
Sources in the aviation industry and Russian air force have confirmed the
report, according to "Vedomosti".
Belarus is expected to field jets acquired from India against F-16s
received by neighbouring Poland after it joined Nato, the sources say.
Under the deal for the supply of 50 SU-30 multi-role fighters signed in
1996, Russia had initially supplied 18 su-30k fighters with the limited
capabilities, which were mainly used by the Indian Air Force as air
defence platforms and were to be flown to Russia for upgradation to MKI
standard capable of using sophisticated weapons against land and sea
targets.
In 2004 Irkut Corporation had completed the deliveries of remaining 32
SU-30mki fighters and licensed production of 140 fighters has commenced at
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
BAE Systems SWS Defence "wondering what was left to demonstrate"
* Trials began in 2002 with three companies in the fray Army could be
* uncomfortable with a single vendor left in the fray and that too one
associated with Bofors
NEW DELHI: Companies as well as defence analysts are wondering at the
Indian Army's move to summon foreign howitzer manufacturers for trials for
the sixth time. BAE Systems SWS Defence (formerly Bofors) said it was
"wondering what was left to demonstrate to the Indian Army" after five
trials spread over as many years. "I really want to know what is the
question so that I can give the right answer. We are in dialogue and
discussion with the Indian Army over this issue," the company Chairman
Hakan Kangert told The Hindu here.
The trials began in 2002 with three companies in the fray. South
Africa-based Denel was blacklisted after it allegedly violated contractual
norms in another defence deal. Israeli company Soltam's gun broke down
during summer trials in the Pokhran desert.
Analysts feel the army could be uncomfortable with the idea of a single
vendor being left in the fray and that too a company once associated with
Bofors. It has, therefore, called for re-trials so that Soltam could
replace the gun that had broken down. Denel's fate hangs in balance with a
Defence Ministry committee set up to examine the case recently submitting
its recommendations to Pranab Mukherjee. In case Denel is cleared, it
could also participate in the next trials.
They also draw attention to the delay in modernising one of three combat
arms of the Indian Army. While the infantry and the armoured regiments are
being equipped with modern arms and military platforms, artillery seems to
be getting left out. Officers operating the upgraded 130-mm guns have
reported teething troubles while the backbone of the artillery still
depends on Bofors howitzers bought nearly two decades ago.
Mr. Kangert also denied that the present company has anything to do with
Bofors which got embroiled in a bribery case in India. "We separated over
10 years ago. From the image point of view, we don't like it [being
associated with Bofors]. The legal part of the company was transferred to
the Dutch group, Akzonobel, and is now its subsidiary. That company is
involved in the investigations in India. The operational part of the
company went to another company and is now a member of the BAE Systems
family," he explained.
NEW DELHI, February 2
Russia has supplied more than seven billion dollars of weapons to India in
the past five years, deputy director of the federal service for military
cooperation Vyacheslav Dzirkaln told a news conference here on Thursday.
Dzirkaln, who leads a Russian delegation at the DefExpo India-2006, said
the arms exports contracts Russia is drawing now are worth some ten
billion dollars.
Among the high-tech products Russia supplied to India are Su-30MKI
fighters, Mi-17 transport helicopters, Ka-31 navy helicopters, and
Krasnopol artillery complexes.
Of special significance are the contracts to finish and upgrade the
Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier which Russia sold to India, develop a
coastal infrastructure for this vessel and supply to India the navy
version of MiG-29 aircraft.
Much attention is paid to a joint project to develop a complex air defense
system, the head of the Russian delegation said.
NEW DELHI, February 2 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and India are working on
contracts worth about $10 billion in the sphere of military and technical
cooperation, a senior Russian official said Thursday.
Vyacheslav Dzirkali, the deputy director of the Federal Service for
Military and Technical Cooperation, said Russia was one of the main
players on the Indian arms market, continuing cooperation that dates back
to Soviet times. Dzirkali is heading the Russian delegation at the Defexpo
India 2006 exhibition of land and naval arms systems.
"In the past five years, Russia has exported military hardware worth more
than $7 billion to India," Dzirkali said. In particular, Russia has
supplied Su-30MKI Flanker multirole fighters, Mi-17 Hip transport
helicopters, Ka-31 ship-borne helicopters and other combat hardware, the
Russian official said.
New Delhi: India yesterday invited the world's largest armaments firms to
forge collaborations to develop hi-tech weapons that could be marketed
around the world.
The invitation came from Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee at the Defexpo
2006, attended by over 200 foreign firms, as he outlined India's ambitious
plans to purchase combat jets and artillery guns to modernise its armed
forces.
Inaugurating the biennial event, Mukherjee pointedly referred to the fact
that India emerged as "the largest arms importer" among developing nations
in 2004 and said the country was keen on forging "collaborations for
export of Indian products".
"The government is encouraging joint ventures, co-production and
co-marketing to improve the utilisation of our production units and to
improve their capabilities," he said, pointing to India's chain of 39
ordnance factories and defence laboratories that produce equipment ranging
from cruise missiles to small arms.
"With the support of our private sector, we aspire to bring in the latest
technology, incorporate the same in the development of state of the
defence products for our armed forces and also export them to other
countries," he said.
In recent years, India has jointly developed the BrahMos cruise missile
with Russia, a homegrown helicopter that has been sold to Nepal and an
indigenous jet fighter expected to enter service by 2012.
Leading armaments firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Thales,
Rosoboronexport and Raytheon are among those taking part in the four-day
Defexpo to pitch their products to India and to explore the possibilities
of forging collaborations.
"If we can produce quality (weapons systems) that are competitively
priced, there is the possibility for exports," Mukherjee told a press
conference.
He, however, admitted there had been a lukewarm response from the private
sector to the opening up of defence production to private investment.
Pointing out that private companies had only submitted 26 letters of
intent, he said: "There has not been much response."
Private investment would not be seen from an "ideological" viewpoint and
the government would welcome all players who offered competitive prices
and efficient production, he said.
Mukherjee said the government would soon issue "request for proposals" to
buy 126 frontline jets to arrest declining force levels in the Indian Air
Force (IAF) and take a decision on modernising the artillery by inducting
hundreds of towed and self-propelled howitzers.
Following the cancellation of the deal with South Africa's Denel for
building an ordnance factory at Nalanda in Bihar, the government would
soon decide on a new partner for the venture.
India scrapped all arms deals with Denel last year following accusations
that it had paid kickbacks to secure a contract for anti-material rifles.
Some 420 companies from 31 countries, including the US, Israel, Russia and
Britain, are taking part in Defexpo.
From multifunctional radar surveillance systems to cell phone
interceptors
and jammers and sophisticated weapons like multi-role assault rifles, the
exhibition offers a huge platform to showcase and market defence
equipment.
New Delhi, Feb 1 -- Swedish arms maker Gripen is in the race to bag orders
for 126 jet fighters India is expected to order shortly.
"We have 30 years of future to offer to India through our product," Bob
Kemp, the company's vice president (international marketing and sales),
said Wednesday at the four-day Defexpo here.
Amid concerns as to whether Washington would allow US firms to make the
sale to New Delhi, Gripen has taken the opportunity to showcase its jets -
"the true new generation fighters".
"While some of the aircraft offered are outdated and already being phased
out in various parts of the world, many are not even sure what they can
offer to India," Kemp told IANS.
Kemp markets his product as a multi-role easy operational aircraft, which
is flexible in terms of manoeuvrability as well as for carrying arms.
"It can even land on a road moving away from high risk bases and can take
off within 600 metres in 10 minutes after touching down and arming
itself," he said.
"It can carry weapons of your choice irrespective of who manufactures
them, really simple and yet sophisticated."
Observing that India already has a wide variety in its inventory, Kemp
said: "Gripen can offer a perfect force mix to compliment the existing IAF
(Indian Air Force) Sukhoi fleet."
Gripen has been keenly observing the requirements of the Indian fleet and
its problems.
"While our fighters operate at least at 50 percent low operational cost
than nearest rivals, our contracts would also ensure a steady supply of
spares," Kemp asserted.
The governments of India and Israel have finalized their biggest defense
development agreement: The state-owned Defence Research and Development
Laboratory (DRDL), Hyderabad, and Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) signed
a pact Jan. 27 for the joint development and production of the long-range
Barak air defense system for the Indian and Israeli militaries. The
agreement is based on joint investment by both companies to develop and
manufacture unspecified numbers of Barak systems. The initial
co-development funding is about $350 million, of which IAI will finance 50
percent, for the next five years, a senior scientist of India's Defence
Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) said. Additional funding will
be infused by both parties as needed. Israel also has projected some
requirements for long-range Barak air defense systems, and it could source
missiles and other systems from India, he said. The agreement paves the
way to meet the immediate requirements of the Indian Navy, the scientist
said. Under this agreement, the DRDL and IAI will develop six long-range
Barak systems for India's stealth warships. The Navy is procuring three
such warships from Russia, and the remaining will be built by the
state-owned Mazagon Docks. DRDO chief M. Natrajan said Feb.1 that he would
gladly announce any major joint development program allowed by the
government, but would neither confirm nor deny the Barak agreement with
the Israeli company. Joseph Fishman, IAI's acting corporate vice president
for marketing and business development, said IAI is not authorized to make
statements on defense programs under a confidential agreement with its
Indian customers, but said that IAI is not averse to joint development
programs with India. A senior Indian Defence Ministry official said there
will be a transformation in the requirements of air defense systems for
the three Indian military services. Based on these projections and the
high cost of air defense systems, the ministry has approved the
initiatives under which Indian state-owned agencies can forge joint
co-development and co-production ventures with foreign companies because
the technology will remain in India. The Army and Air Force also have
projected requirements for long-range air defense systems for a credible
nationwide command-and-control structure. The Navy as a policy has decided
that in the future it will only mount long-range air defense systems and
surface-to-air missile systems on warships that are under construction or
yet to be built. The Navy has already mounted short-range Barak air
defense systems on many of its warships, including the aircraft carrier
INS Viraat.
index | HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |