South Asia Peace WiregalleryContact

Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order

Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order

[Press Release - Bombay, 12 March 2007]

The International Seminar on “Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order” held in Mumbai, on March 10-11, 2007 was organised by a number of local organisations, as per the attached list ‘A’, and endorsed/participated by the international organisations, as per the attached list ‘B’.

After due and indepth deliberations in which a number of international and national experts and activists took part, the Seminar has resolved as under:

I. What the Deal Is All About?
The content of the ‘Deal’, which is currently being negotiated between India and the US, was first laid out the joint statement issued by the Indian Prime minister and the US President on July 18 2005 from Washington DC and then further reiterated on March 2 2006 in another joint statement by them issued from New Delhi incorporating the major elements of agreements between the countries reached till then. The signing of the Henry Hyde Act on December 18 2006, after protracted and nervewracking deliberations in the US Congress, by the US President towards amending its own Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to make the ‘Deal’ possible is a major step forward towards bringing the ‘Deal’ into force.

The ‘Deal’, in its essence, is meant to enable India, a nonsignatory to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), henceforth to have ‘civilian’ nuclear trade - in terms of nuclear fuel, technology, plants, spares etc., with the US, and also other nations so desirous, by making a unique exception in case of India. India in return will have to designate, at its own options, its nuclear reactors into two categories - ‘civilian’ (for power production) and ‘strategic’ (for Bomb making), and ensure separation between the two. The ‘civilian’ reactors/plants only will be opened up for international inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The nuclear trade will accordingly be limited to the ‘civilian’ reactors only. In case of the ‘strategic’ ones, there will be neither any inspection nor any trade.

II. When and How the ‘Deal’ Comes into Operation?

In order to bring the ‘Deal’ into force, India will have to further finalise the “123 agreement” with the US, laying down the specific scope and terms of cooperation and codifying the modes of separation between the ‘civilian’ and ‘strategic’ plants and perhaps diluting some of the conditions incorporated in the Henry Hyde Act at the instance of the US Congress to which India is objecting; and conclude a treaty with the IAEA on the specific scope and terms of inspection.
Then the proposal will go to the 45member Nuclear Suppliers Group so that it unanimously amends its rules, which as of now prohibits nuclear trade with India - being a nonsignatory to the NPT, to accommodate the above two agreements reached between India, on the one hand, and the US and the IAEA on the other.
On succeeding in obtaining a green signal from the NSG, the whole package will go back to the two houses of the US Congress, which stands reconfigured since, for its final nod.

In the event of obtaining such, the US President would put his signature and the ‘Deal’ will eventually come into operation.

The Indian government, unlike its US counterpart, is not obligated to obtain any parliamentary approval.

III. Why the ‘Deal’ Must Be Opposed?
The ‘Deal’ as and when, and if at all, comes through will grievously undermine the current global regime of nuclear nonproliferation, as it is meant to make a unique exception in case India, in gross violation of the underlying principles of the NPT, and thereby also the prospects of global nuclear disarmament. The fact that Pakistan has been brusquely refused a similar deal by the US in spite of persistent clamouring and Iran is being demonstratively coerced to desist from developing its own nuclear fuel cycle technology, integral to nuclear power production allowed and encouraged under the Article IV of the NPT, further brings out graphically the abominable discriminatory nature of the ‘Deal’. Moreover, the lesson that one would tend to learn is that if one can weather the initial storms of international censures after breaking the nonproliferation taboo, things would normalise in a while. One may even get rewarded in the process. This is sure to trigger off stepped up vertical and horizontal proliferations.

Moreover, by enabling India to import fuel, natural or enriched uranium, from abroad, the ‘Deal’ would make it possible for India to use the indigenously produced uranium exclusively for Bombmaking. This possible escalation in its fissile material production capacity is, in all likelihood, push Pakistan further to nuclearise even at a great cost, and thereby aggravate tensions and accelerate arms race in the region with spinechilling consequences.

It’d also further cement the growing (unequal) strategic ties between the US and India and thereby would add momentum to the US project for unfettered global dominance and Indian craze to emerge as a global power basking in the reflected glory of the global headman. It’d just not only undermine India’s position as a founding and leading member of the NAM, it’d also pose a very serious challenge to the NAM and its objectives in terms of radically raised level of US domination on the global scene.

India’s rather meek submission to highly deplorable and dangerous threats issued and postures adopted by the Bush regime in relation to Iran and its nuclear programme instead of trying to find a just and fair solution in terms of having a Weapons of Mass Destruction free MiddleEast including Israel is a clear and extremely worrisome pointer. India’s keenness to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) initiated by the US to interdict any vessel in international waters suspected of carrying (unauthorised!) nuclear materials, in gross violation of all international laws and also the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) programme of the US are another two highly disturbing indicators.

India’s growing closeness with Israel, the frontline state of the US in the Middle East, would also pick up further pace in the process.

This ‘Deal’ would obviously distort India’s energy options by diverting scarce resources to developments of resourceguzzling, intrinsically hazardous and potentially catastrophic, nuclear power at the cost of ecologically benign renewable sources of energy.

This would, furthermore, provide a strong boost to the nuclear industry worldwide, particularly the potential suppliers from the US. And that’s precisely why the business lobby in the US is working overtime to get the ‘Deal’ clinched.
The recent visit by the Russian President Vladimir Putin to India as the guest of honour at the Republic Day event and his public commitment to supply additional nuclear reactors to India and work for the safe passage of the ‘Deal’ through the NSG underscores the convergence of interests of the nuclear power lobbies worldwide as regards the ‘Deal’ and the new market that it is promising to open up.

IV. We Demand

The government of India, given the grave multifaceted negative implications of this ongoing deal, must forthwith withdraw from all further negotiations with the US in this regard.

It must strive to regain its old prestige and influence, both moral and political, by opting to again play a meaningful leading role in the NonAligned Movement and other international alliances geared against imperialism, militarism and oriented towards a nuclear weapons free South Asia and the world.

The government of India is further urged to make global abolition of nuclear weapons its diplomatic priority and take up and pursue the issue vigorously with the NAM, UNGA and other international fora.

V.

The Seminar also decides to send a copy of this Resolution to the Prime Minister of India, the Chairperson of the ruling UPA - Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the incumbent chair of the NAM - the Cuban government, and also the United Nations SecretaryGeneral, Mr Ban Kimoon.

It also urges the members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to turn down the proposal to amend its rule to accommodate the ‘Deal’, as and when it come sup for discussions.

‘A’
Indian Organisers:
Bombay Urban Industrial League for Development (BUILD)
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS)
Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA)
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP)
Documentation & Research Training Centre (DRTC)
Forum for Justice & Peace (FJP)
Indian Institute for Peace, Disarmament &
Environmental Protection
Indian Doctors for Peace and Development (IDPD)
Initiative India
Institute Community Organization & Research (ICOR)
Labour Education and Research Network (LEARN)
National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
Pakistan India Peoples’ Forum for Peace & Democracy (PIPFPD)
Peace Mummbai
People’s Media Initiative (PMI)
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra (VAK)
Wisdom Foundation
Women’s Centre
and others

‘B’
International Organisations Endorsing:
AfroAsian Peoples’ Solidarity Organisation
Friends of the Earth Australia
Mayors for Peace
South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy (SANSAD),
and others

Event Details
10.3.2007 (SATURDAY)
10 0011 00: Registration & Inauguration.
Welcome Speech: Admiral (Rtd.) L Ramdas (PIPFPD/CNDP).
11 0014 00: 1st Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: India, NonAligned Movement and the Emerging Global Order’.
Speakers: Achin Vanaik (CNDP), A.A.M Marleen PC (SecretaryGeneral, AAPSO, Sri Lanka), Ashim Roy (General Secretary, NTUI), Ms. Hamsa Abd ElHamid (International Secretariat, AAPSO, Cairo).
Chair: Fr. Allwyn D’Silva (FJP/ICOR).
15 0018 00: 2nd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Nuclear Arms Race’.
Speakers: John Hallam (Friends of the Earth, Australia), E.A.Vidyasekera (AAPSO Secretariat Coordinator), Hari Sharma (President, SANSAD, Canada) speech read out in absentia, Praful Bidwai (CNDP).
Chair: Vijay Darp (PIPFPD).
March 11 (SUNDAY)
10 0013 00: 3rd Plenary: ‘IndoUS Nuke Deal: Its Impacts on Global and Regional Energy Options’.
Speakers: Surendra Gadekar (CNDP/Anumukti), V T Padmanabhan (Researcher on radiation effects on human heath), M V Ramana (CNDP).
Chair: Leslie Rodrigues (VAK).
14 0018 00: 4th Plenary:
Documentary film by K P Sasi on effects of radiation (from thorium) on human health.
Strategy Session and Adoption of Resolution.
Speakers: Theodore Orlin (President, International Human Rights Education Consortium, USA), Sandeep Pandey (NAPM/CNDP), Eric Toussaint (CADTM, Belgium) and others.
Chair: Sukla Sen (CNDP).
Discussion on Film
Speaker: V T Padmanabhan.
Chair: Sushovan Dhar (VAK).
Thanksgiving
Related Entries:
India: Statement of Students Against Nuclear Power
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
India-Pakistan: 3 minutes to nuclear disaster, anybody listening ?
Bombs Not Food Seem To Be Priorities of the Indian State
India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch No 168
 Permalink

Bombs Not Food Seem To Be Priorities of the Indian State

LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA


5 March 2007
 
 
Dr. Manmohan Singh
Prime Minister of India
 
Dear Prime Minister,

Neglect of Children Under Six in the Union Budget 2007-8
 
We are writing to express our deep concern about the neglect of children under six in the Union Budget
2007-8.
 
You may remember meeting some of us on 19 December 2006 (just after “Bal Adhikar Samvad”), when we discussed the FOCUS Report, the rights of children under six, and the recent Supreme Court judgement on ICDS.  At that time you had assured us that the UPA Government was committed to the universalization of ICDS, as stated in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP), and also to the implementation of the Supreme Court judgement.  We are, therefore, startled and dismayed that this commitment is not reflected at all in the Union Budget 2007-8.  The allocation for ICDS (Rs 4,761 crores) has barely increased in real terms, and is virtually unchanged as a proportion of GDP.
 
It is a mystery to us how the CMP commitment and Supreme Court judgement can possibly be implemented within such meagre budget allocations.  The Supreme Court judgement requires an increase in the number of Anganwadis from the present 9.4 lakhs to 14 lakhs at the very least by December 2008.  Higher allocations are also required to enhance the quality of ICDS services.  Based on fairly conservative calculations of the requirements of “universalization with quality”, the National Advisory Council had recommended (in November 2004) an allocation of at least Rs 9,600 crores for ICDS in 2007-8.  This figure needs upward revision in the light of the Supreme Court judgement, yet the actual provision in the Union Budget 2007-8 is not even half of this conservative estimate.
 
As per this Budget, the Government of India will be spending less than Rs 5,000 crores this year on children under six, who represent more than 15 per cent of India’s population.  This compares with Rs 96,000 crores to be spent on “defence”.  This is a staggering and unacceptable imbalance in Budget priorities.  The contrast is all the more shocking at a time of growing evidence (particularly from the National Family Health Survey) that there has been no substantial improvement in infant and young child nutrition, including optimal breastfeeding practices, during the last eight years, in spite of runaway economic growth.
 
We urge you to intervene and ensure a fairer deal for children in the Union Budget 2007-8 as well as in the 11th Plan.  We also take this opportunity to reiterate our appeal for more active political leadership on children’s issues, including the universalization of ICDS.
 
Yours Sincerely,
 
                                  
  Jean Dreze        N.C.Saxena Shantha Sinha  Aruna Roy
  (Allahabad University)        (former Secretary, (M.V.Foundation) (National Campaign for
     Planning Commission)                         People’s Right to Information)
                           
Kavita Srivastava Harsh Mander   Vandana Prasad     Arun Gupta
(People’s Union  (Centre for Equity                (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan)     (Breastfeeding Promotion 
for Civil Liberties) Studies)           Network of India)
              
       Annie Raja                        Veena Shatrugna  Sudha Sundararaman            
      (National Federation               (National Institute                     (All India Democratic                       
       For Indian Women)                 of Nutrition)                   Women’s Association)         
 
 
 
 
cc: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (Chairperson, UPA),     Shri P. Chidambaram (Finance Minister),
     Dr. Montek S. Ahluwalia (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission)
Related Entries:
India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch No 168
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
Food or Weapons ? What's in people's interest?
India-Pakistan: 3 minutes to nuclear disaster, anybody listening ?
Resolution adopted at the seminar Indo US Nuclear ‘Deal’ India, South Asia, NAM and the Global Order
 Permalink

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch No 168

India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch
Compilation (February 28, 2007)
Year Seven, No 168
URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IPARMW/
produced by South Asia Citizens Web and South Asians Against Nukes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Eminent Jurists Begin Probe into Counter-Terrorism Laws in South Asia
2 India: So-called Anti-Terrorist Laws are Tools of State Terrorism
3 Pakistan: Militarisation of politics
4 War in Afghanistan and Pakistan
5 Pakistan: Sources of illegal weapons are all too well known to need investigation
6 India: Guns for pleasure, anyone?
7 Pakistan: New policy on military lands
8 Pakistan and India’s mad fantasy of keeping nuclear weapons free from risk:
- Nuclear accord designed to promote ‘stable’ environment
9 India and Pakistan’s tit for tat missile race:
- Pakistan military tests missile - Hatf VI missile test
- Pakistan test fires long-range ballistic missile
- India tests Brahmos Missile in February 2007
- India Plans 2nd ABM Test in June [2007]
10 India – Pakistan - Defence Spending:
- Big rise in Indian defence budget
- India hikes defence budget to Rs 96000 cr
- Hike in unproductive expenditure
11 The "disappeared" in Pakistan and India:
- Pakistani "disappeared" a growing problem: group
- Democracy disappears with persons who ‘disappear’
- Kashmir Solidarity Committee and APDP Hold protest Rally in Delhi
- Kashmir’s big lie
- India: Investigate All ‘Disappearances’ in Kashmir
- India: Government Should Act to Stop Murders in Custody
- Rogues in Khaki - Justice cannot be delivered on pick and choose basis
- Indian anti-terrorism troops accused of executing civilians
- Criminals in combat fatigues
- FIRs expose Army's hand in civilian killings
- Another body exhumed in Kashmir
- Body of carpenter killed in "encounter" exhumed
12 Siachen Madness or Mountain Peace
13 Victims of War on Terror in India and Pakistan:
- Trial and terror
- Voices of The Internally Displaced: Jammu & Kashmir
- Too many dubious convictions in Pakistan, say activists
14 Manipur and the Struggle Against AFPSA
- Manipur: The Irom Sharmila saga
15 Fire Bombing of Samjhauta Express :
- Peace and The Burning Train
- Samjhota Explosion
- Put The Joint Mechanism To Work
16 Arms Sales To The Region - Plans and The Players:
- Pakistan gets eight attack helicopters
- Russia Works To Remain India’s Top Supplier
- Aviation firms descend on India air show
- Reports: India plans aerospace military command to oversee space-based assets
- "Work on nuke deterrence for Navy underway"
- India sets sights on cruise missile market

FULL TEXT AT:
http://www.sacw.net/peace/IPARMW168.pdf
Related Entries:
Bomb's Interests vs People's interest's in South Asia
Food or Weapons ? What's in people's interest?
India-Pakistan: 3 minutes to nuclear disaster, anybody listening ?
Bombs Not Food Seem To Be Priorities of the Indian State
terrorism-hit train fails to move the South Asian peace process
 Permalink

terrorism-hit train fails to move the South Asian peace process

by J. Sri Raman (truthout.org)

    The hawks of India and Pakistan can heave a sigh of relief. A terrorism-hit train has failed to carry the South Asian peace process forward even fractionally, as many had fondly hoped.

    This should come as no surprise to watchers of the region, considering the place for terrorism in the political themes official India and Pakistan have pursued in the past, especially in the post-9/11 period. Before coming to that, a brief look at the latest twist in the tale.

    The bomb blasts of February 18 on the Samjhauta (Understanding) Express, taking a toll of 68 Pakistani and Indian lives (mostly the former), caused a surge of hope along with great sorrow on both sides of the border. The common tragedy was expected to make the rulers of the two countries move, even if reluctantly, towards a common approach to terrorism - to its perception as a common enemy.

    For a short while, this seemed to be happening. Observers noted a series of negative gains.

    For the first time, in the first place, an apparent terrorist strike did not lead to an abrupt break in the bilateral talks through which the peace process has proceeded thus far. The Mumbai train blasts of July 11, 2006, attributed officially and by the opposition in India to "cross-border terrorism," had applied a sharp, sudden brake to the process, with the scrapping of scheduled talks at the level of foreign secretaries. Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, was due to visit New Delhi on February 20.

    The very next day, an India-Pakistan pact on nuclear risk reduction was signed. And, the two sides went ahead with their earlier plan to hold the first meeting of an India-Pakistan Joint Counter-Terror Mechanism (JCTM) in Islamabad on March 6-7.

    The list of pluses ends here, and the longer one of pathetic minuses begins. Many may wonder how much of a plus the pact on nuclear risk reduction was, considering that it envisaged no more than alerting the other side in case of a "cross-border" fallout; and some may find strange the official safety promise following an accident of this scale. Let us, however, let that pass.

    What we cannot forget is how fast the feigned anti-terrorist solidarity disappeared at the official level. The people of Panipat, where the bombs went off, rushed to rescue the Pakistanis, and passengers from across the border vowed to travel by the same train and not to concede a victory to terrorism. Representatives of the two governments, especially in the foreign affairs and railway ministries, however, started bickering even as the Samjhauta victims lay groaning in hospital beds.

    While Kasuri and his Indian counterpart Pranab Mukhejee voiced the most virtuous sentiments, lesser officials traded charges over the charred bodies. Pakistanis were accused of impeding investigations, and Indians were accused of treating the victims as "suspects."

    Pakistan's Railway Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed gave a new dimension to the ugly debate by insinuating that Kasuri was "compromising" Pakistan's position in India. We do not know whether it is an official policy to let Rashid get loudly anti-India while the rest of Pakistan's establishment, including President Pervez Musharraf, appears sober and responsible. But the Railway Minister has gone full steam ahead trying to derail the peace process.

    Nothing much, in these circumstances, was really expected from the JCTM meeting, and nothing much has emanated. According to Indian accounts, based on official briefings, the Indian side shared "evidence and information" with Pakistan about the Samjhauta affair, though the evidence seems to have been confined to the picture of a single suspect, handed over for further investigation. According to similarly based Pakistani accounts, this picture was not accompanied by the person's passport number or other particulars. Denying this, New Delhi insists that specific details were given. The public has no way of knowing which of the reports is right.

    The Pakistani side claimed to have given its counterpart "concrete evidence" of India's involvement in the Balochistan rebellion. The role of Indian consulates in neighboring Afghanistan's Kandahar, Jalalabad and Herat in this regard is said to have been documented in detail. The Indian side has, of course, indignantly denied this as well, claiming that the consulates were only devoting themselves to Afghan development projects.

    The JCTM is scheduled to meet again in June. But, despite the Samjhauta tragedy, no serious observer expects New Delhi and Islamabad to become comrades-in-arms against terrorism. The barest possibility of such a partnership, in fact, disappeared when both of them became part of the Bush-led "alliance against global terror" in the aftermath of 9/11.

    Both of them, after all, entered the alliance with eagerness only in a desperate bid to turn it decisively against each other. President Musharraf has repeatedly reiterated his hope that Islamabad's anti-terrorist partnership with Washington and the West will help its cause in Kashmir. New Delhi under former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee for its part, while forging a "strategic partnership" with the US, pressed for recognition of its right to stage "a pre-emptive strike" against Pakistan. Anti-terrorism, obviously, does not carry the same connotations in both the capitals.

    It never did. B Raman, a former official of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence service, illustrates the point in one of his recent articles. Recalling earlier efforts made in the late '80s and early '90s for a common mechanism of counterterrorism, he says that the Indian side then focused on the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab, believed to have cross-border backing. The Pakistani side's counter was to present New Delhi with a dossier on India's involvement in the separatist struggle in the Sindh province.

    Punjab and Sindh, in other words, have just been replaced by Kashmir and Balochistan in the supposed counterterror confabulations of the two countries. The game can be expected to go on.

    We should not be surprised, however, that Richard Boucher, US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, finds the outcome of the JCTM session "positive." Such charades do help to keep appearances of an anti-terror alliance, while keeping its South Asian members divided enough for cynical manipulation.

    A freelance journalist and a peace activist of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t.
Related Entries:
India-Pakistan: 3 minutes to nuclear disaster, anybody listening ?
India Pakistan Arms Race and Militarisation Watch No 168
Citizens Groups respond to fire bombing of the train between India and Pakistan
Bomb's Interests vs People's interest's in South Asia
Villages near India's nuclear tests site have no reason to celebrate
 Permalink
1-4/4