Crisis India-Pakistan:
Achtergrondinformatie, analyse en nieuws
uit de Indiase, Pakistaanse en internationale media.

index

The Praful Bidwai Column, February 13, 2006

India: Deep divisions on fast breeders - Nuclear deal in peril?

By Praful Bidwai

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.

index

DefenseNews.com, February 13, 2006

U.S. Looms Large at Defexpo
MMRCA Program, Collaborations Draw Attention

By Vivek Raghuvanshi, New Delhi

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.

index

Economic and Political Weekly, February 11, 2006

The Iran Issue

Achin Vanaik

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.

index

The News International, February 11, 2006

Impasse over Indo-US nuclear deal?

Praful Bidwai

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.

index

DefenseNews.com, February 8, 2006

France Says It Will Take Back Asbestos From Warship

By Agence France-Presse, Alang

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.

index

Spacewar.com, February 8, 2006

Bush Waives Export Restrictions On Pakistan

by Staff Writers

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.

index

February 6, 2006

Jacques Chirac in India (20-21 Feb. 2006)

Declaration of the French Communist Party's District 93

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

index

DefenseNews.com, February 6, 2006

India Pulls 5,000 Troops Out of Kashmir

By Agence France-Presse, New Delhi

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.

index

Defense-Aerospace.com, February 5, 2006
http://www.defense-aerospace.com

Global Arms Makers Hawk Their Wares in India

Source: Voice of America news

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.

index

The Hindustan Times, February 4, 2006

India says no to US P-3C Orion aircraft

Rahul Bedi (IANS)

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.

index

The Hindustan Times, February 3, 2006

Agni-III ballistic missile ready for launch

Indo-Asian News Service

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."

index

DefenseNews.com, February 3, 2006

India Says Latest Nuclear Missile Ready for Launch

By Agence France-Presse, New Delhi

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.

index

ZeeNews.com, February 3, 2006

Belarus to buy 18 Sukhoi jets from India

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).

index

The Hindu, February 3, 2006

Bofors ghost behind repeated artillery gun trials?

Sandeep Dikshit

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.

index

TASS, February 2, 2006

Russia supplied 7 bln dlrs of weapons to India in past 5 years

Yuri Sidorov

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.

index

RIA Novosti, February 2, 2006

Russia, India working on $10bln arms contracts

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.

index

The Peninsula, February 1, 2006
www.thepeninsulaqatar.com

Delhi woos global firms for hi-tech weapons

Source: IANS

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.

index

Indo-Asian News Service, February 1, 2006

Gripen showcases fighters

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.

index

DefenseNews.com, February 1, 2006

India, Israel Will Jointly Develop Long-Range Barak

By Vivek Raghuvanshi, New Delhi

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

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 21 februari 2006