Unseen Passage From Indo US Relations, COPULATION Not be Seen in Public
Obama submits report to Congress on Indo-US nuclear deal
Washington (PTI): Hailing the agreement reached between India and the US on End User Monitoring (EUM), a premier business advocacy organization of the US companies in India said it will immediately boost up the defense trade between the two countries.
The United State India Business Council (USIBC) has termed the agreement, reached during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to India, as "breakthrough".
"Such an agreement will enable defense and security trade between the US and India as never before, and will facilitate the participation of US companies in supporting India in transforming its military and homeland security apparatus," the USIBC said in a statement.
Required under the US law, EUM is a strong indication of President Barack Obama's commitment to the US-India strategic partnership which was now achieving tangible and concrete traction.
"Agreement on EUM, besides opening the door to increased defense trade and security cooperation, indicates a high level of trust and cooperation between the US and India," president of USIBC Ron Somers said, adding its signals that both the nations were looking to share the latest and best American technology and systems.
News results for EUM pact to boost Indo-US defense trade
 SINDH TODAY | EUM pact to boost Indo-US defense trade: USIBC - 7 hours ago "Agreement on EUM, besides opening the door to increased defense trade and security cooperation, indicates a high level of trust and cooperation between the ... Hindu - 24 related articles » |
The Hindu News Update Service
www.hindu.com/holnus/001200907210942.htm - 7 hours ago - Similar -
The Hindu News Update Service
www.hindu.com/holnus/ - Cached - Similar -
More results from www.hindu.com »
EUM pact to boost Indo-US defence trade: USIBC
www.newstin.com/tag/us/134302020 - 6 hours ago - Similar -
The Hindu Business Line : Oil up in Asian trade
www.blonnet.com/blnus/10211010.htm - 6 hours ago - Similar -
The Hindu Business Line News Update Service
www.blonnet.com/blnus/ - 6 hours ago - Cached - Similar -
More results from www.blonnet.com »
The Hindu Business Line News Update Service
www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/blnus/index.htm - Similar -
Hindi News Online « Bazaar Book
www.bazaarbook.com/?page_id=4 - Cached - Similar -
Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh's Speech in the Parliament on ...
win2vin.wordpress.com/.../prime-minister-mrmanmohan-singhs-speech-in-the-parliament-on-22nd-july-2008/ - Cached - Similar -
US Security News - Congoo
www.congoo.com/Industry/US-security - Similar -
Reliance Petroleum Limited (SHORT-TERM:STRONG BUY):126.50 +0.10 (+ ...
www.buzzingstocks.com/in/index.pl?t=RPL - Cached - Similar -
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next |
EUM pact to boost Indo-US defense trade: USIBC
Email this storyIndia – United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_–_United_States_relations - Cached - Similar -
Indo-US relations: The road ahead
www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=151917 - Cached - Similar -
Indo-US Relations and its Implications for Asian Security
www.allacademic.com/meta/p180843_index.html - Cached - Similar -
Select Web Sites: INDO-US Relations
www.indiahabitat.org/indo.htm - Cached - Similar -
IDSA:: The Indo-US Relationship: Is Diplomatic Style Important?
www.idsa.in/.../Indo-USRelationshipDiplomaticStyle060409.html - Cached - Similar -
INDO-US RELATIONS- Gujral's Speech
www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/gujral.htm - Cached - Similar -
Nuclear deal transformed Indo-US relations: Meera Shankar - India ...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...Indo-US-relations.../4775407.cms - Cached - Similar -
Indo-US Relations Headed for a Grand Transformation?
yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5999 - Cached - Similar -
The Big Picture: Downgrade in Indo US relations
ttrammohan.blogspot.com/.../downgrade-in-indo-us-relations.html - Cached - Similar -
'McCain will be positive for Indo-US relations'
www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/10inter.htm - Cached - Similar -
News results for Indo US relations
 | Indo-US end-user defence pact generates heat in LS - 41 minutes ago New Delhi, Jul 21 (PTI) The just-concluded Indo-US end-user monitoring defence agreement today created heat in the Lok Sabha with Opposition parties ... Press Trust of India - 15 related articles »US advisory committee holds rare meeting on India - Hindu Business Line - 6 related articles » |
| Searches related to: Indo US relations | |||
| indo us nuclear deal | indo pakistan relations | indo sri lanka | indo us treaty |
| indo pakistani relations | indo iran relations |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next |
US advisory committee holds rare meeting on IndiaHindu Business Line - 6 hours ago ... a key advisory committee of the State department on international economic policy held a rare meeting on Indo-US economic relationship. ... Army Chief in US, defence cooperation, Af-Pak to top agendaHindu - 17 hours ago The visit comes at a time when Indo-US bilateral relations are on an upswing and there is a consensus from both sides to take the strategic partnership to a ... Indian Army chief to discuss Af-Pak policy during US visit India-Forums.com General Deepak Kapoor to begin US visit from today Thaindian.com Indo-US end-user defence pact generates heat in LSPress Trust of India - 42 minutes ago New Delhi, Jul 21 (PTI) The just-concluded Indo-US end-user monitoring defence agreement today created heat in the Lok Sabha with Opposition parties ... India-US end-user pact angers opposition Thaindian.com Cabinet meeting postponed Press Trust of India Hillary, Sonia discuss PakGreaterKashmir.com (press release) - 15 hours ago Sources close to Sonia said the Indo-US relations dominated at the ''very cordial'' meeting of both the leaders. However, Pakistan and violence figured ... Hillary meets Sonia, discusses terrorism, bilateral relations India-Forums.com Hillary meets Sonia Gandhi at her residence in New Delhi Thaindian.com Protocol holds up Hillary-Sonia meeting Times of India Rein in Pakistan: AdvaniExpress Buzz - 3 hours ago US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Leader of Opposition LK Advani at his residence in New Delhi on Monday. NEW DELHI: Indo-pak relations and the ... Advani cries to Clinton on Pak Calcutta Telegraph In talks with Advani, terror & BJP's poll show Indian Express Polluters must pay for clean-up: Advani to Hillary Economic Times Reprocessing talks with US to begin next weekHindu - - Jul 18, 2009 Like Dr. Grover, Dr. Stratford is a veteran of the complex and difficult negotiations that followed the signing of the Indo-US nuclear deal in July 2005, ... A revival of the nuclear issue? Livemint Westinghouse, GE-Hitachi to win nuke orders: report India Infoline.com '70% of defence equipment imported'The Statesman - 14 hours ago A range of strategic issues, including America's Af-Pak policy, the regional security situation and Indo-US defence cooperation will top the agenda of ... Space agreement to help launch 'India-US 3.0'Hindu - Jul 19, 2009 South Block officials say the new dialogue architecture is intended to take Indo-US relations to a higher level, 3.0 — to use Ms. Clinton's phrase — and ... |
July 26 is celebrated as 'Vijay Diwas' which marks India's triumph over Pakistani intruders in Kargil. Launch of the indigenously-built nuclear-powered submarine has been planned for July 26 to coincide with Vijay Diwas. A host of Navy and defence officials are expected to grace the occasion.
Though the Navy authorities haven't yet officially confirmed the programme, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy announced the Prime Minister's visit to Visakhapatnam after a meeting with the latter in New Delhi late last week. A senior Navy official told PTI over phone from Visakhapatnam that everything related to the event was being taken care of by Navy higher officials in New Delhi.
"Right now we have no information about the event as such," the Navy official added. Said to be built under the Advanced Technology Vessels (ATV) Programme at a cost of 2.9 billion USD at the Naval Dockyard in Visakha patnam, the 6,000-tonne submarine will be put on sea trials for two years before being commissioned into full service. In the two years, the submarine will also undergo harbour trials of its nuclear reactor and other systems.
India previously used a leased Russian-built nuclear submarine INS Chakra under then Capt R N Ganesh from January 1988 to January 1991.
With the launch of the indigenously-built nuclear-powered submarine, India will join the exclusive club of US, Russia, China, France and the UK with similar capabilities. The ATV will give India the additional power of a nuclear weapon strike from the sea, apart from surface and air which it currently possesses.
The ATV has been developed jointly by the Indian Navy and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The nuclear reactor of the submarine has reportedly been developed at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, while the vessel is based on the Russian Akula-I class submarine.
"Home minister P Chidambaram says the government will end Maoism in the country. His statement will remain a dream. It is not possible to end the Maoist movement... If Chidambaram has the courage, he should come to Jharkhand," the CPI (Maoist) said in a press release issued here late Monday.
It also threatens Manmohan Singh and United Progressive Alliance (UPA) chairperson Sonia Gandhi.
"Both the PM and Sonia Gandhi will meet a fate like former prime minister, late Rajiv Gandhi," said the release issued by Anup-ji, a member of the Jharkhand state central committee of the CPI (Maoist).
Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eealam (LTTE) woman suicide bomber at an election rally in Sriperumbudur near Chennai in May 1991.
The CPI-Maoist, in the statement, has also threatened Congress leaders in Jharkhand, asking them to quit the party or face dire consequences.
"The CPI (Maoist) is desperate after it was termed as a terrorist outfit. It just wants to gain mileage by issuing such press releases," a police official involved in anti-Maoist operation in Jharkhand said.
According to PTI, the Maoists have called a 24-hour bandh in Jharkhand from midnight today in protest against price rise.
The CPI (Maoist) Jharkhand State Central Committee gave the bandh call in a faxed message to the media here late last night.
"I think that we have stepped back from the abyss. I think we've put out the fire," he said in an interview with PBS, according to a transcript released by the TV station.
But Obama, who is facing declining popularity ratings for the first time in his presidency, said a lot remains to be done to fix the recession-mired US economy.
"The analogy I use sometimes is, we had this beautiful house. And there was a fire. We came in and we had to hose it down. The fire is now out, but what we've discovered is, we need some new tuckpointing, the roof's leaking, the boiler's out, oh, and by the way, we're way behind on our mortgage," Obama said
The work that remains will be undertaken with "the limited resources" that are available, and will take time, Obama said.
"Nobody's more mindful than I am of the difficult, difficult times that people are feeling right now," he said.
In touting his administration's response to the crisis, the president pointed to the financial regulation he hopes to impose to prevent some of the unchecked activities that contributed to the economic freefall.
"The problem that I've seen, at least, is you don't get a sense that folks on Wall Street feel any remorse for taking all these risks; you don't get a sense that there's been a change of culture and behavior as a consequence of what has happened.
"And that's why the financial regulatory reform proposals that we put forward are so important," Obama said.
But he added that he did not regret his administration's decision to fund loans to a number of big financial firms deemed too important to the functioning of the financial system to be allowed to collapse.
"If we didn't stop the bleeding in the financial system, then it would have been even worse for everybody... That I don't have second thoughts about," he said.
In an interview with PTI, Finance Secretary Ashok Chawla also ruled out using the proceeds of disinvestment to finance fiscal deficit, even as it is expected to widen to about 18-year high of 6.8 per cent of GDP this fiscal.
"Basically, we will first go with the companies which are listed and where stocks in public float is much less-- two per cent, five per cent etc. There is scope for that to increase," Chawla said.
There are at least 12 listed public sector units where public shareholding is less than 10 per cent. They include companies like NMDC, MMTC, Neyveli Lignite, Hindustan Copper.
However, Chawla did not name the companies where disinvestment process could start.
"Now we have had some views, preliminary identification of where it (disinvestment) will be possible, we had some discussions with ministries. It is at that stage," he said.
When asked about the amount government aims to raise from disinvestment, Chawla said, numbers cannot be fixed as yet since these are only preliminary discussions.
"Now what will finally be agreed to? What will the Cabinet approve? What percentage? When it will happen? What will be the market price? That will determine the amount which is a function of number of shares and market price. So, there cannot be a maximum target per se," Chawla said.
Chawla indicated that the advise given by the Economic Survey about raising Rs 25,000 crore from disinvestment every year might not happen this fiscal.
"What the economic survey says you should look at Rs 25,000 crore a year, but that may or may not happen every year. In the current year already four months or so have gone. There is time process, through which these companies have to go, so therefore for the current year it is very difficult to say what the amount will be," the Finance Secretary said.
He also said the proceeds from disinvestment will not be used to fund widening fiscal deficit. "The amount will not be used for to finance fiscal deficit, it would be used for high priority social sector programmes," he said.
| Also Read |
| → DEPB may be extended till March |
| → Essential goods may get service tax sop on rails |
| → No proposal to free fuel prices: Minister |
| → Esops escape 'promoter' tag |
There were speculations that the government may use part of the proceeds to finance fiscal deficit, but currently the proceeds go to the National Investment Fund
When asked whether NIF norms will be changed, Chawla said, "That I can't say. The Cabinet will decide that. But, either way whether it is spent through NIF or otherwise, it will be spent on flagship social sector programmes," he said.
Related Stories
| Other stories in this section | |
| Other News | |
| Market | |
| NSE|BSE | |
| | |
| | |
| Corporate Announcement Anand Sharma new BoT Chairman, replacing Kumar Mangalam Birla | |
| ET Debates | |
| Beyond Bill and Bush Hillary pledges higher plane for ties; arms pact elusive | ||
| OUR BUREAU | ||
New Delhi, July 20: Hillary Clinton today promised to pitch expanding Indo-US ties on even higher ground than previous administrations and clarified sharply that Washington was not opposed to transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies to India. But the secretary of state could not carry home a signed agreement that would have allowed the US to meet a domestic requirement and let American companies bid for multi-billion dollar defence deals in India. Choosing their words carefully, both sides suggested they had "reached", not signed, an agreement on the end-use verification pact that will allow the US to verify how India is using the military equipment it buys from America. The Telegraph had reported on Sunday that a cautious course was likely as India was reluctant to be seen in public as making a categorical commitment. The end-use verification agreement is required by US law for weapon sales and is crucial for American companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing to bid for multi-billion dollar Indian armament deals. Statements in Delhi and Washington this evening implied that some differences on the agreement were still to be ironed out. "It is an arrangement, not an agreement," an Indian official said – a distinction which found echo in a fact sheet issued by the state department in Washington. "External affairs minister (S.M.) Krishna announced the Indian government's agreement to end-use monitoring arrangements for high-technology military sales between India and the US," the state department said. However, Clinton took care to address the overriding concern in India about the course of bilateral ties after Barack Obama became the US President. "I can pledge more than what Presidents (Bill) Clinton and (George) Bush did. I am deeply committed to building this relationship because I believe co-operation between the US and India will drive progress in the 21st century…" Clinton said. Her assertion came at a media conference with Krishna this evening at the conclusion of her five-day visit to India. Asked to comment whether the Obama administration had shifted focus away from India in seeking stronger ties with China and Pakistan, Clinton said: "Well, the US is constantly called upon to play a role in the world, every hour of the day, and we do have relations with other countries, but I can't underestimate the nature of our relations, especially because it is a relationship between the oldest and the largest democracies in the world. Now that is a stronger basis for ties than any other." She also flagged Obama's invitation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — it's for an official visit beginning November 24 — as an indicator of the special Indo-US relationship. "The very fact that President Obama has invited Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to make the first state visit of the new administration is an indication of how importantly we view India," Clinton said. Elaborating on her talks with government leaders, Clinton said: "What we have outlined today will mean a significant expansion in our relations. External affairs minister Krishna and I will chair a continuing strategic dialogue and we want it to be not just a dialogue between governments, we want it to become a dialogue between our two nations and peoples. "The dialogue process must become a forum for action, what Americans and Indians have in common is that we like to roll up our sleeves and get things done." On transfer of nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies that had come under a cloud after a G8 statement, she said: "We don't oppose such transfers to India, there is now a basis for it which is, of course, the civilian nuclear deal." She was quick to attach general US concerns on the issue, saying: "But we are opposed to unauthorised and inappropriate transfers which can take place. There is a right way to do it and a very wrong way. We are seeking advice from India on how to prevent such unauthorised and dangerous transfers." Clinton said Delhi had approved two nuclear sites reserved for US companies, part of the civilian nuclear agreement, but did not name them, though locations such as Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat were being speculated about. "I am also pleased that Prime Minister Singh told me that sites for two nuclear parks for US companies have been approved by the government," she said. The subsequent state department fact sheet was a tad less categorical, saying India "pledged to designate" two sites. Clinton arrived at Hyderabad House overlooking India Gate a little behind schedule for delegation-level talks with Krishna and Indian officials; she came straight from a meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi at 10 Janpath, which carried on much longer than scheduled. Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi also met her. Earlier in the day, Singh hosted Clinton to lunch at his residence. Rahul was the only Congress functionary who figured on the Prime Minister's list of invitees. WHAT BOTH SIDES TAKE AWAY FROM THE TABLE
|
The Ministry of Micro, Small and Enterprises is also bullish on sales of products from rural industries
"The total cumulative employment in the Khadi and Village Industries sector is estimated to have increased to 102.35 lakhs by the end of March 2009 as against 99.21 lakh by the end March 2008," says the annual report of Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises for 2008-09.
While the village industries are projected to have 100.25 lakh jobs by end of 2009-10, the Khadi sector is estimated to have 10 lakhs during the period, the report said.
The report is also bullish on sales of products from rural industries. Merchandise sales from village industries is expected to increase by 10 per cent to Rs 22,344 crore in the fiscal,
Sales from khadi industries are estimated to increase to Rs 910 crore in 2009-10 from Rs 855 crore in the last fiscal.
The MSME sector is estimated to employ about 42 million people in over 13 million units throughout the country. The sector accounts about 45 per cent of the manufacturing output and 40 per cent of the total exports of the country.
He was supported by Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M), Gurudas Dasgupta (CPI), Mulayam Singh Yadav(SP), Sharad Yadav (JD-U), Lalu Prasad (RJD), Bhartuhari Mahtab (BJD), M Thambidurai (AIADMK) and Nageshwara Rao (TDP).
"The report covers the period of October 4, 2008, to June 30, 2009. It provides an update on US-India civil nuclear cooperation and developments that relate to India's nuclear-related activities," Obama wrote to chairman and ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Denying a suggestion that Clinton was trying to send some signal by keeping her meetings with Indian government leaders for the third day of her visit Crowley said: "I don't think so at all."
"Their work sparked "innovation, the drive, the entrepreneurship, the creativity back here on Earth"."
INTUC's opposition to disinvestment in POSCO during UPA-I had found backing from the Congress high command with the result that the government was forced to abandon the plan.
The secretary of state has tried to repeatedly tried to assure Indian industry over the past two days that her government was not getting protectionist, although proposed changes to tax laws
The 'buy American' plan, proposed earlier this year as part of the package by the Obama administration to stimulate growth in the world's largest economy, was also seen as a protectionist move that had the potential to plunge the developing world, particularly trading partners of the US, deeper into an economic crisis.
Ms Clinton in her interviews to television channel had emphasised that President Obama did not want a return to protectionism when Congress passed the provision in the stimulus package.
Restrictions were placed on the number of foreign workers that could be hired by companies that received financial assistance from the government.
India on its part has maintained that the developed nations should not take recourse to protectionism as it would deepen the crisis, especially in developing countries.
At Monday's meeting of all central TUs, the INTUC along with other AITUC, CITU and HMS, decided to oppose the UPA government's policies on issues such as price rise of essential commodities, especially food grains; rising job losses and unemployment; violation of basic labour laws; the inadequacy of provisions under the Unorganised Sector Act, 2008; and the government's proposed disinvestment plans. Sources said that BJP-led BMS could also join the protest.
The central TUs are set to submit a memorandum to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh detailing their opposition and protesting the government's inadequacies. The leader of a Left TU said the memorandum would ask the government to take "urgent and concrete measures" to correct the economic situation. The Central TUs will also hold a national convention on 14 September to highlight the concerns, the leader said. The signatories to TUs statement on Monday include G Sanjeeva Reedy of INTUC, Gurudas Dasgupta of AITUC, M K Pandhe of CITU and R A Mittal of the HMS.
The government's disinvestment plan has run into opposition from DMK and the Trinamool Congress who have spoken against the measure in Parliament. That notwithstanding, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee reiterated the UPA government's commitment to the reform process, including disinvestment plans, in his reply to the Budget discussion in Parliament. Congress has begun the process of consultation with allies estimate how much it can move forward on the proposal.
"Our expectation is that the borrowing programme is not going to put pressure on bond yields, at best it could be marginal," he told reporters.
Chawla also said that he sees economic growth of around 7 percent for 2009/10 and expects inflation to be between 2-3 pct by end March.
"The Budget includes a very stringent boost, plan expenditure and investment ... We don't need any more stimulus packages," Ahluwalia told reporters here.
"We should concentrate on implementing what is there," he said.
This is part of the about USD 250 billion allocation of SDR by the IMF to provide liquidity to the global economic system by supplementing IMF's 186 member countries' foreign exchange
The funds would be available at the end of August, IMF officials said.
The equivalent of nearly USD 100 billion of the new allocation will go to emerging markets and developing countries, of which low-income countries will receive over USD 18 billion, IMF officials announced during a conference call after a decision in this regard was taken by the IMF Executive Board.
"The SDR allocation is a key part of the fund's response to the global crisis, offering significant support to its members in these difficult times," IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said.
The officials added that India's allocation of about USD 4.5 billion is based on its IMF quota. The money could immediately boost its foreign reserve. If India does not need this money, it has the option to trade the money with other countries, which are in need of international fund to boost their economic condition.
The SDR allocation was requested as part of a trillion dollar plan agreed at the G-20 summit in London in April and endorsed by the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) to tackle the global financial and economic crisis by restoring credit, growth and jobs in the world economy.
If approved by the Board of Governors with an 85 percent majority of the total voting power in a vote scheduled to close on August 7, the SDR allocation will be in effect on August 28.
"The allocation is a prime example of a cooperative monetary response to the global financial crisis," the managing director said.
The SDR allocations are being made to IMF members in proportion to their existing quotas in the fund, which are based broadly on their relative size in the global economy.
The operation will increase each country's allocation of SDRs by approximately 74 per cent of its quota, and fund members' total allocation to an amount equivalent to about USD 283 billion, from about USD 33 billion (SDR 21.4 billion).
SDRs allocated to members will count toward their reserve assets, acting as a low cost liquidity buffer for low-income countries and emerging markets and reducing the need for excessive self-insurance, the IMF said in a statement.
The Government has cut excise duty by six per cent and
About monsoon, he said, "Monsoon has improved; there was deficient rainfall but deficiency was more earlier -- it has reduced now, (and) the monsoon has not ended yet, I think we should wait and see the entire month of July."
He said if there is continuous improvement in July, the situation will not be that bad.
"At present, there is no proposal to free petrol and diesel price in the country," Prasada said in a written reply to a question in parliament.
The government sets prices at which retail fuels can be sold, and partially compensates state-run oil firms for the lost revenue.
Earlier this month, the government increased retail fuel prices by as much as 10 percent.
Oil marketing firms were projected to suffer revenue loss of Rs 49,270 crore ($10.2 billion) in the fiscal year to March 2010 on sales of petrol, diesel, kerosene and cooking gas, the minister said in a written reply to a separate question.
The government was closely monitoring international oil prices and would make appropriate pricing decisions to protect the interests of the common man, particularly the vulnerable sections of society, he said, without elaborating further.
While Times Business Solutions that owns the portal www.timesjobs.com is betting on city-specific portals, Info Edge that owns naukri.com and a city-based learning management firm Expertus have come out with job portals exclusively for fresh graduates.
According to Vivek Madhukar, vice president of timesjobs.com, the content and the jobs listed in city portals are more focussed and serve the interests of both job-seekers who would like to stay at a particular location and recruiters who like to recruit people already based in the city.
"Both job seekers and employers prefer specific locations," Madhukar said.
Times Business plans to have around eight city-specific portals including those launched already for Delhi and Mumbai.
"After the launch of the Delhi site (www.delhi.timesjobs.com), the number of hits jumped 38 percent, job listings by 27 percent and applications by 25 percent," he said.
"The next city portal will be Bangalore-centric."
Expertus, however, has decided to be even more focussed -- and target fresh graduates.
Explaining the rationale behind the move, the company's managing director
According to him, the best way a fresher can get a job is in the college itself with the placement officer interfacing between the campus and the corporate world.
Naukri.com, too, feels first-time job seekers open up a new segment.
Said Deepali Singh, business head at www.firstnaukri.com: "India has over 5,000 recognised management colleges, yet the placement procedure remains offline for most of these colleges."
"This would help the recruiters to do first round of short-listing online. Second, there is no specialised portal which allows recruiters to showcase internship jobs or limited period projects for students. Firstnaukri.com will attempt to fill this gap in the online space," added Singh.
Krishnamurthi of Expertus said job portals for freshers offer tier-two and tier-three colleges an opportunity to showcase their students to the corporate world, as leading firms usually visit only the top colleges.
According to him, conventional campus hiring made talent supply seem short, increasing the wage bills for firms.
Expertus is now planning to launch a similar portal in Malaysia with a local partner there.
Times Business is also catering to the segment.
"It (portal for freshers) does not serve our primary purpose of finding for people the right job, at the right time and place. (But) we have a special section and micro site on timesjobs.com called 'CampusDirect' that showcases freshers to employers," Singh pointed out.
"Based on the recommendations of the BRPSE (Board for Restructuring of Public Sector Enterprises), revival or restructuring of 15 PSEs has been approved," the minister told Rajya Sabha in a written reply.
Some of the PSEs that received large amounts of funding from the government are Cement Corporation of India Ltd (Rs 1452.24 crore), Heavy Engineering Corporation (Rs 1,368.30 crore), HMT (MT) Ltd (Rs 880.80 crore) and Tyre Corporation of India Ltd (Rs 815.59 crore), according to the data provided by the minister.
The BRPSE recommended 27 PSEs for revival between December 2004 and June 2009, out of which 15 have already been provided funding by the government.
Other sick companies in the list that have received funding included Nagaland Pulp and Paper Co Ltd (Rs 669.42 crore), Instrumentation Ltd (Rs 549.36 crore), Andrew Yule and Co Ltd (Rs 383.33 crore), National Instruments Ltd (Rs 241.86 crore) and Bridge and Roof Co Ltd (Rs 102.92 crore).
Rest of the six companies received funds in the range of Rs 51.37 crore to Rs 214.71 crore.
The minister said the government is contemplating referring Scooters India Ltd to BRPSE.
On a day filled with heavy political engagements, Ms Clinton at an interaction with DU students on Monday morning touched on a variety of issues ranging from the public to the personal. But even she would have noted that the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan is a real worry for people from all walk of life, including students.
Reiterating the message that Pakistan is committed to act against terror, she said, ``I have seen a real will on the part of Pakistan government to tackle terrorism... It is their government which is being attacked and people who are being mistreated." She further told students that the US has to look for ways to support those who oppose terror. She also used the Cold War analogy to illustrate the importance of dialogue. Observing there was dialogue between the two sides even during the Cold War, she said, ``So, I am a big believer in talking, that doesn't mean you give (up) your principles, your values, your safety and security but through talking perhaps progress can be made." She also pushed for increasing people-to-people contact in the region.
Apart from the issue of terrorism and Pakistan, climate change, her presidential campaign and women's rights were also up for discussion as students bombarded her with questions at Delhi University. Apart from the political and strategic aspect of her trip Ms Clinton's trip to India has been characterised by such engagements where she has reached out to people and has sought to answer questions on a range of issues.
On climate change, she said that the US is willing to have discussions on climate change and respected India's reservation on the matter of putting a cap on emissions.
"...We understand the differences each of our countries face in trying to deal with climate change. So, now let us see if we can find some creative solution". No progress can be made unless "we have that very open dialogue," she said. She called her discussions on climate change fruitful and said that it was helpful to discuss such issues. "We are very open to others' perspective," she said.
She also sportingly took questions on her own unsuccessful presidential bid and her years as a US First Lady. She told students that she felt lucky at having being made it to the US state department. She further said that she would never have imagined she would run for US presidency or become part of the administration when she was the president of her college. "I feel grateful for the experience that I had...I could never otherwise think I could ever run for US President," she said. She was responding to a question on whether she thought she was deprived of the post because she was a woman. ``We have come a long way since my mother, who was born before probably even voting rights were given to women in US".
UPA govt acting at the behest of Mukesh's RIL: RNRL
RIL made sure that the supply of gas from the KG Basin to various fertiliser and power companies continued as per the interim arrangement made by the Bombay High Court in its order dated January 30 this year.
RIL's counsel Harish Salve sought a clarification from the SC asking whether the present arrangement of gas distribution as per the January 30 order should continue or not. The SC said it has not passed any order to alter it.
Anil's RNRL, which seeks implementation of Bombay High Court's order giving it a share of the gas as per the family agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with RIL for a period of 17 years, through counsel Ram Jethmalani and Mukul Rohtagi targeted the Centre for playing hand-in-glove with Mukesh Ambani's venture and wanted the petroleum ministry's appeal to be thrown out.
When a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam inquired why the court should do it when the government appeared to have a right to challenge if it was aggrieved by the HC order, Jethmalani bluntly said: "We do not want this government to do anything with this dispute between RNRL and RIL. That is because this government is operating from the pocket of RIL."
If this was an indicator of how hotly contested this matter would be, given the fact that the apex court would be the final adjudicator, RIL's counsel Harish Salve sarcastically retorted: "I have not yet looked into the pocket of my friend's client to find out who is operating from there."
But, the seasoned counsel knew well that the court would not decide anything in a jiffy when the stakes involved are high and when the Centre through additional solicitor general Mohan Parasaran was seen repeatedly demanding an opportunity to be heard saying the dispute was not between two private parties but involved a matter of immense national importance.
The court deferred hearing on all the appeals till September 1 but clarified that it would be taken up by a three-judge Bench. However, it had serious reservation to various fertiliser and gas-based power companies seeking permission to intervene in the dispute.
Counsel Ashok Desai and Dushyant Dave said their clients needed a chance to put forth their views as any variance of the gas supply to them by RIL through bilateral agreements would have a vital bearing on their production. When Salve supported their intervention on the ground that gas was supplied to them on the basis of the January 30, 2009, interim order of the HC and that they should also be heard, Rohtagi accused RIL of setting them up to unnecessarily complicate the matter, which is a dispute between RIL and RNRL.
Jethmalani specifically targeted the UPA government. He said the Centre merely had a role of an intervener and had fearfully withdrawn all its affidavits after he sought permission from the HC to cross-examine the government on this issue. "If they had decided to withdraw their affidavits from the HC, they could not be permitted to file the same affidavits here in the Supreme Court," he said.
ASG Parasaran said: "We are only trying to protect the national interest vitally linked to natural gas production
- ULFA hiring students to trigger blasts in Assam: Police chief
- Maoists issue threat to PM, Sonia, Chidambaram
- Kalam frisking row: Uproar in Rajya Sabha; Praful assures action
- Cong leaders for fielding Paswan for Rajya Sabha from Delhi
|
| ||||
| Kalam for separate law for micro credit in Indian villages
Lauding the efforts of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank, former President A P J Abdul Kalam has said that he will promote the idea of a separate law Kalam, on his three-day Bangladesh tour, visited the Grameen Bank headquarters here yesterday to exchange views with Mohammad Yunus, whose experiment with rural banking earned him global praise and the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. | ||||
New Delhi (PTI) Shifting from its earlier stand, the government on Tuesday indicated that it may allow the IITs and IIMs to open campuses in foreign countries.
Minister of State for Human Resource Development D. Purandeswari told the Rajya Sabha that government would be open to idea of allowing the IITs and IIMs to set up campuses in foreign countries once they improve their faculty positions.
The government had earlier turned down a proposal of IIM Bangalore to open a campus in Singapore. The HRD Ministry did not agree to the proposal saying that the Memorandum of Association of IIM, Bangalore, does not empower the institute to open campuses abroad.
The Minister on Tuesday said it may not be immediately feasible for the IITs and IIMs to open campuses abroad as they are facing faculty shortages and have to undertake 54 per cent expansion in their intake to implement OBC quota.
Setting of campuses abroad may further strain the IITs' limited manpower and other resources, Ms. Purandeswari said in a written reply.
She said various MOAs of the IIMs will need to be amended because these MOAs do not empower them to open campuses abroad.
Court has three options after Kasab's confession: Lawyers
Mumbai (PTI) With the lone surviving 26/11 Mumbai attack terrorist Mohammad Ajmal Kasab admitting to his guilt, both the prosecution and the defence feel that there are three options open before the court now.
Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam and defence lawyer Abbas Kazmi appearing for Kasab on Tuesday said the special court conducting the 26/11 trial has three options following the Pakistani pleading guilty and confessing to his crime on Monday.
"The first option is for the court to accept Kasab's plea and convict him. The second option is for the court to not accept the confession and the third is for the court to accept the confession, but direct for the trial to go on," Mr. Nikam told reporters here on Tuesday.
"If the court goes with the third option, then the prosecution will have to provide evidence to back Kasab's confession," Mr. Kazmi said.
He also said the prosecution should investigate the role of an Indian named Abu Jindal in the terror conspiracy as revealed by Kasab in his confession.
Mr. Nikam, however, said Kasab is a great actor and is naming new persons each time. "He is well trained and well prepared.
The police will minutely evaluate every detail of his statement," he said.
13 die as Taliban bombers attack two Afghan cities
KABUL (AP) Five Taliban suicide bombers attacked government centers in an eastern Afghan city on Tuesday in a complex attack that has become a signature of major Taliban assaults. Five bombers and five Afghan security forces died, officials said.
Three people died in a similar attack on a second Afghan city in the east.
Using suicide bombings, gunfire and rockets, the militants attacked the provincial governor's compound, the intelligence department and the police department in the eastern city of Gardez just before 11 a.m. (0630GMT; 2:30 a.m. EDT).
A suicide bombing in front of the city's police station killed two police, while a militant fired a rocket at the city's intelligence department and killed three officers, said Ghulam Dastagir, deputy provincial police chief of Paktia province. A rocket was also fired at the governor's house, he said.
A second suicide bomber at the police station was shot and killed, as were three suicide bombers who tried to attack the governor's house, Mangal said. At least two bombers were clothed in women's burqas when they were shot and killed, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary.
Militants tried to carry out attacks in a second eastern city _ Jalalabad _ at around the same time. Mohammad Ayub Salangi, the provincial police chief, said two suicide bombers on a motorbike and a police officer were killed after a gun battle broke out.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, claimed that 15 militants _ all in suicide vests _ attacked government centers in Gardez. He said they were carrying AK-47 assault rifles and rockets.
U.S. forces responded to the attacks but it wasn't immediately clear if they were involved in any fighting, said spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias.
Taliban militants over the last year have launched several complex attacks, which usually involve multiple suicide bombers and additional gunmen. They have been launched in Kabul, the capital, and Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual birthplace. Analysts say al-Qaida fighters provide the training that help militants here to carry out such attacks.
The most recent complex attack took place in May in the eastern city of Khost, when 11 Taliban suicide bombers struck government buildings, sparking gunbattles with U.S. and Afghan forces. Twenty people died in the attacks and three American troops were wounded.
Khost, which is 40 miles (70 kilometers) east of Gardez, is a key area of operation for militants associated with the insurgent network run by Sirajuddin Haqqani.
Taliban militants have stepped up attacks the last three years and now control wide swaths of countryside in the country's south and east. A record 68,000 U.S. troops will be in the country by fall as the Pentagon increases its focus on Afghanistan while drawing forces out of Iraq.
Hillary leaves for Thailand
New Delhi (PTI): The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left here for Thailand at the end of her five-day visit.
She will be attending a meeting of ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) in the island of Phuket in Thailand.
In India, she visited Mumbai and stayed at the iconic Taj Hotel, which was one of the targets of the November terrorist attack. She also met business leaders there.
Later in the capital, Clinton met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna among others. India and the US entered into various agreements including the one on end use monitoring pact on defence procurement and technologies from the US.
| Govt hones in on probable independent directors for Air India | |||
"We are going to form an independent Board of Directors very soon. I shall be meeting the Prime Minister this week and discuss all the probable names," he told reporters on the sidelines of a management institute function here.
The airline's current board has only one independent director - N Vaghul, ex-Chairman of ICICI, while the remaining nine are either from the Civil Aviation Ministry or the airline itself.
The probables identified by the government are people who can "give time and contribute meaningfully for this great turnaround" that the airline hopes to achieve, Patel said.
On the requirement of funds for reviving the national carrier, Patel said that a revival plan on the financial side is expected from SBI Caps soon.
Dispelling the notion that the government would bail out the carrier, whose losses in FY'09 are expected to be near about Rs 5,300 crore and working capital borrowings around Rs 16,500 crore, Patel said the ministry was not looking at any major financial help but only an equity infusion.
By Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI, Jul 21 (IPS) - As U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began talks with Indian officials in New Delhi on Monday to take a forward a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, signed by the previous Bush administration, it was apparent that there were many roadblocks to be cleared before deals worth an estimated 10 billion dollars are signed.
Robert Blake, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, said last week, that the deal presented a "major opportunity for American companies, and opens up as much as 10 billion dollars worth of exports to India''.
But standing in the way of those business opportunities -- involving the export of reactors and technology -- is legislation pending in Indian parliament that would shield U.S. suppliers from liability in the event of an accident, thereby allowing them to access insurance cover.
Probir Purkayastha, a leading member of the Delhi Science Forum, told IPS that placing responsibility on Indian operators alone while protecting U.S. suppliers was "unacceptable" and likely to be challenged by human rights activists and also by opposition groups in parliament whenever it comes up.
Purkayastha, said he was not opposed to the use of nuclear power to meet India's energy needs but was worried because of the sheer cost of U.S. atomic energy which he estimated at around 5.6 million dollars per megawatt.
U.S. firms like GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse Electric already face competition from suppliers such as the Paris-based Areva SA and Russia's Rosatom Corp. which are covered by sovereign immunity because they are fully or partially controlled by governments when it comes to liability issues.
While sites have already been identified in the Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, where U.S. nuclear power plants may be built, separate talks between Indian and U.S. officials are to begin later this week in Vienna to determine how spent fuel generated by U.S. supplied reactors will be reprocessed.
Under the pact signed last year between the two countries to open up sales of civilian nuclear technology to India, after a gap of three decades, India was to build a specially safeguarded facility where the reprocessing of spent fuel would be carried out.
India, under the deal, gains access to U.S. technology and atomic energy it allows inspection of Indian civilian nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Military sites are excluded and this has been a sticking point with arms-control advocates who opposed deal on the grounds that there were inadequate safeguards to separate India's military nuclear programme from its power-generation.
As part of the deal, the Bush administration had obtained for India a special waiver on nuclear trade from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The group ruled last September that "participating governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA safeguarded civil nuclear facilities."
However, the G8 nations, at their summit in L'Aquila, Italy earlier this month, declared a ban on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology and equipment to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India has consistently refused to sign the NPT saying it is discriminatory.
The G8 declaration welcomed efforts to "reduce the proliferation risks associated with the spread of enrichment and reprocessing facilities, equipment and technology," and the "progress that continues to be made by the NSG on mechanisms to strengthen controls on transfers of such enrichment and reprocessing items and technology."
However, the declaration committed NSG member countries to implement on a "national basis" proposals that were "useful and constructive" to strengthen controls on ENR items and technology developed at a November 2008 meeting of its consultative group.
U.S. involvement in the G8 sparked fears being expressed in India that the administration of President Barack Obama was targeting India as non-signatory of the NPT. But these fears were allayed in Parliament by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Jul. 13 when he told members that because there was an "India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA, we are not concerned over what position the G8 takes."
Analysts say that India's real bargaining strengths lie in its plans to spend at least 175 billion dollars on nuclear energy production in the next 30 years and the fact that it has developed its own technologies in spite of technology sanctions on reactors, technology and fuel imposed immediately after it carried out nuclear tests in 1974.
There are other worries for the main U.S. nuclear suppliers, Westinghouse and General Electric because of their close links with Japan, a country with which India does not have a nuclear cooperation agreement. Westinghouse is owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp., while GE has a strategic partnership with Hitachi to jointly execute nuclear energy projects worldwide
On Sunday, the Imagindia Institute, an independent think-tank, issued a statement that said: "It is our significant worry that unless Japan and India have a nuclear cooperation agreement, it may be difficult for Westinghouse and GE to participate in Indian business."
According to the Institute's statement, unless Toshiba and Hitachi obtain specific clearances form Tokyo "the ability of GE and Westinghouse to engage in India's nuclear business may be severely handicapped."
But the biggest opposition to U.S. companies may come from activists who are citing the dismal record of the Union Carbide Corp. which was responsible for the world's worst industrial disaster when its pesticides plant in Bhopal city killed 3,800 people following a leak of cyanide gas in December 1984.
In June, a group of 27 members of U.S. Congress wrote to Dow Chemicals, which took over Union Carbide's assets in Bhopal in 2001, to accept responsibility for meeting the medical needs of the survivors and their economic rehabilitation, besides cleaning up the soil and water of the area around the site.
"Despite repeated public requests and protests around the world, Union Carbide has refused to appear before the Bhopal District Court to face the criminal charges pending against it for the disaster," the letter to Dow said.
"With what happened in Bhopal in view, we will oppose any move to bring in legislation to shield U.S. suppliers from liability in the event of a nuclear accident," S.P. Udayakumar, convenor of the convenor of the National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM), told IPS.
In particular, NAAM is opposed to India acceding to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage which makes plant operators responsible for damages from any accident while shielding suppliers from liability.
(END/2009)
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47736
 |
The banking behemoth has swung into a profit of $4.28 billion in the second quarter on the back of a gain of $6.7 billion from the stake sale of Smith Barney brokerage.
According to the company, in the second quarter, the number of employees stood at around 2,79,000.
"Head count declined by approximately 30,000 from the first quarter of 2009, to 2,79,000, mainly driven by Smith Barney transaction," Citigroup said while announcing the second quarter results today.
"Head count is now approximately 96,000 below peak levels. June was the 20th consecutive month of head count decline," the statement said.
In the second quarter of last year, the company had a loss of $2.49 billion, it said in a statement.
Revenues for the second quarter surged 71 per cent to $30 billion as compared to the same period a year ago. In the comparable period, revenues stood at $17.5 billion.
Citigroup has already received three lifelines from the US Federal government including fresh capital injection to the tune of $45 billion to tide over the financial turmoil.Citigroup cuts nearly 30,000 jobs in second quarter
Citigroup has already received three lifelines from the US government including fresh capital injection to the tune of $45 bn to tide over crisis.
NEW YORK: Citigroup has slashed nearly 30,000 jobs in the second quarter of this year as the banking major resorted to cost cutting measures to tackle the financial turmoil.
The banking behemoth has swung into a profit of $4.28 billion in the second quarter on the back of a gain of $6.7 billion from the stake sale of Smith Barney brokerage.
According to the company, in the second quarter, the number of employees stood at around 2,79,000.
"Head count declined by approximately 30,000 from the first quarter of 2009, to 2,79,000, mainly driven by Smith Barney transaction," Citigroup said while announcing the second quarter results today.
"Head count is now approximately 96,000 below peak levels. June was the 20th consecutive month of head count decline," the statement said.
In the second quarter of last year, the company had a loss of $2.49 billion, it said in a statement.
Revenues for the second quarter surged 71 per cent to $30 billion as compared to the same period a year ago. In the comparable period, revenues stood at $17.5 billion.
Citigroup has already received three lifelines from the US Federal government including fresh capital injection to the tune of $45 billion to tide over the financial turmoil.
Fed able to foil inflation when time comes: Bernanke
Stressing that the weak US economy will likely warrant exceptionally easy policies for a long time to come, Bernanke outlined in a newspaper opinion piece how the Fed could raise interest rates even with cash flooding the financial system.
"Accommodative policies will likely be warranted for an extended period," Bernanke wrote in the article published on the Wall Street Journal's web site. "At some point, however, as economic recovery takes hold, we will need to tighten monetary policy to prevent the emergence of an inflation problem down the road."
The outline of the Fed's "exit strategy" from the extraordinary monetary policy easing it has undertaken offers a preview of testimony Bernanke will deliver to Congress on Tuesday as he presents the Fed's twice-a-year economic report.
Investors showed little reaction to the article.
"It doesn't look like he's sounding too anxious or urgent about removing excess stimulus from the system," said Sue Trinh, a senior currency strategist at RBC Capital Markets in Sydney.
The Fed has lowered benchmark overnight rates to near zero and pumped more than $1 trillion into financial markets to counter the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression and one of the most severe recessions in decades.
Some economists have expressed alarm that the U.S. central bank's aggressive policies may have sown the seeds for an outburst of inflation when economic activity picks up.
Bernanke acknowledged the massive accumulation of bank reserves at the Fed could fuel unwanted price pressures when banks find more opportunities to lend money.
The value of the deal would in the range of a few hundred million dollars as Merrill would try to command a multiple on the annual fee it earns from the fund, the source told Reuters. The source declined to be identified because the deal was not public.
The potential sale comes as Bank of America, which took over Merrill Lynch earlier this year, is moving away from asset management. The bank is currently in talks to sell its Columbia asset management unit.
"The U.S. banking model is very different from say the Singapore or Asian model of universal banking due to historical and regulatory reasons," said David Lum, an analyst at Daiwa Institute of Research.
Merrill invested $700 million in the property fund that closed late last year and plans to stay invested, the source said, adding the talks may also involve other Asian real estate assets.
In October, Merrill said it had raised the fund to invest in Asian real estate, which it said then would invest mainly in Japan, China, India and South Korea..
"We are looking to transfer the GP function of this fund to an asset manager," the source told media, adding the fund is fully invested.
Often, a GP (general partner) is active in the day-to-day operations of the partnership, which Merrill currently is for this fund and some other real estate assets.
BofA-Merrill Lynch declined to comment, and Blackstone and Apollo were not immediately available to comment.
A Reuters poll in June said demand for residential property is picking up in key Asian cities, but economic recession will continue to depress the region's office markets, pushing Grade A rents in Singapore and Tokyo down nearly 40 per cent in the next 18 months.
| US job market still faces big challenges: Treasury 21 Jul 2009, 0420 hrs IST, REUTERS | |||
Alan Krueger, assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy, said job losses in the current recession have been more severe than expected as employers hold off on hiring and federal stimulus spending takes months to work its way through the economy.
"Although there is always a risk of a false dawn, so far the latest phase of the recession has followed the typical pattern seen around the end of recessions," Krueger told a conference of actuaries in Washington.
"The financial markets have recovered sooner than production, and production is stabilizing faster than the job market. If the typical pattern continues, a major challenge going forward will be hiring, as markets continue to stabilize but employers delay hiring in the face of lingering uncertainty," Krueger said.
Krueger said more jobs have been lost in the current recession for the decline in gross domestic product than previous data would suggest. "If the usual historical pattern had held, the unemployment rate would be around 8 percent, instead of 9.5 percent," he added.
He attributed this partly to the fact that the recession was brought on by a financial meltdown, which has put more pressure on firms to shed payroll commitments to conserve cash. Increases in productivity also have allowed employers to maintain output with fewer workers.
A Treasury study identified "excess job loss" as being concentrated in key sectors that are sensitive to credit availability or directly affected by the financial crisis -- manufacturing, construction, real estate, finance and insurance, he said.
Krueger said money from the Obama administration's $787 billion economic stimulus plan was being spent ahead of schedule, but lags in spending and job creation has caused the White House to predict that only about 10 percent of the total jobs impact over the life of the recovery act would occur in 2009, with the peak job impact not expected until the end of 2010.
Krueger said another major concern was that 40 percent of the unemployed report themselves as "permanent job losers," which is well above the figure reached in previous recessions.
"The share of the unemployed on permanent layoff is significantly elevated compared to what one would predict from the size of the GDP contraction," he said.
The 'Green India Executive Mission' is being organized by the US-India Business
"The mission would comprise of senior executives representing major US companies offering these technologies, which can help India meet its energy security needs and mitigate climate change," USIBC Director Policy Advocacy Ted Jones said here today.
The 5-day mission beginning October 26 will visit New Delhi
The American executives will meet senior government officials in New Delhi from October 26-28 and will have policy discussion there.
They would participate in the CII-USIBC Green Business Summit in Mumbai from October 29-30, wherein, the visiting executives will network with their Indian counterparts about the main commercial opportunities in these technologies.
| GURGAON: India on Sunday said it was not in a position to accept any "legally binding" reductions in green house "India's position is clear and categorical that we are simply not in a position to take any legally binding emissions reductions," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said here flanked by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the backdrop of contentions from developed nations that New Delhi was not doing enough to tackle the problem of climate change, Ramesh asserted India was not running away from its responsibilities. Ramesh, however, pointed out that India is taking steps to combat climate change and has already launched a national plan to tackle the problem. He asserted that India's per capita emissions would never exceed that of the developed countries. "The US does not and will not do anything that would limit India's economic progress. India is a country very vulnerable to climate change," Clinton said. The US wants India to agree to limit its carbon emissions ahead of the signing of a new UN climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. "India's green house gas pollution is projected to grow by about 50 per cent between now and 2030," Clinton said. | |
| CO2 caps, trading central to climate fight: UK 20 Jul 2009, 1937 hrs IST, REUTERS | |||
At the government level, national caps on emissions should ensure countries take responsibility for limiting their own greenhouse gases. At the individual emitter level, trading schemes should cap emissions and allow trade in carbon permits, the report said.
"The current framework for international carbon trading needs reform," said Mark Lazarowicz, the Prime Minister's representative for global carbon trading.
A single global emissions trading scheme would reduce governments' autonomy over their domestic policies and be difficult to put into place, the report said.
A dual system, however, would cover all emissions sectors, respect governments' wish to choose their own tools for reducing domestic emissions and maximise cost effectiveness.
"If well-designed, a dual-level system of global carbon trading could reduce the costs of emissions by up to 70 percent," Lazarowicz said.
REFORM Market experts say linking the EU's emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) with the United States is a crucial first step towards a global carbon market, which will help achieve real emissions cuts in planet warming greenhouse gases.
The United States plans to introduce a domestic cap-and-trade scheme but the Senate still has to approve it.
Linking the EU ETS with a federal U.S. system by 2015 was "ambitious" but should be a priority, the report said.
A linked system would increase the liquidity and stability of both schemes, cover between 13-27 percent of global emissions and reduce costs across both schemes by 30-50 percent.
It would also provide momentum for an eventual OECD-wide trading scheme, the report said.
To achieve real emissions cuts, the United Nation's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) needs to be "reformed and streamlined," the report said.
The CDM allows industrialized countries to meet mandatory carbon dioxide cuts by buying offsets generated from clean energy projects in countries such as India and China.
Instead, the report favours a sectoral trading approach, whereby a government would be responsible for meeting an emissions target specific to a particular sector of the economy using an emissions trading scheme, taxation, regulation and/or subsidies.
Under the Kyoto Protocol climate change pact, nations below their emissions targets can sell excess rights, called Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), to other governments that emit above their targets.
The system is expected to result in an AAU surplus of 7-10 gigatonnes tonnes in the period 2008-12. To deal with this problem, developed countries should cancel a substantial proportion of their excess AAUs, the report proposed.
The UK government has decided to cancel surplus AAUs equivalent to the difference between its Kyoto and domestic emissions cut targets, the report said.
"There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions," Jairam Ramesh, minister of state for environment, told Clinton in their talks.
"And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours," he added in a statement he made to Clinton in private, repeated to journalists and then handed out to the media.
The comments took some of the shine off an event that Clinton staged at a "green" building outside New Delhi to show the potential of energy-saving technologies.
The red brick building, built by ITC tobacco and hotels conglomerate, maximizes natural light and its glass lets in light but not heat, which respectively reduce the need for artificial light and air-conditioning.
Making her first trip to India as secretary of state, Clinton was, however, upbeat about bridging US-Indian differences on how to curb the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
"We had a very fruitful discussion today," Clinton told reporters after a one-hour discussion with Ramesh. "We have many more areas of agreement than perhaps had been appreciated."
TECHNOLOGY PACT
The United States wants big developing countries such as India and China, whose emissions are skyrocketing as their economies grow, to agree to rein them in.
Developing countries say industrial nations must curb their own pollution and provide funding to help developing nations before they are asked to set limits that could crimp their economic expansion.
Both sides appeared to be playing to the Indian domestic audience, with Clinton saying Washington did not wish to do anything that would reduce India's growth and Ramesh seeking to blunt criticism his government might concede too much.
Todd Stern, the US special envoy for climate change, accompanied Clinton and will hold talks over the next few days with senior Indian officials.
With a new UN climate treaty due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December, tackling global warming is one of the central issues on Clinton's visit to New Delhi. On Monday she will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and external affairs minister SM Krishna to discuss defence sales, nuclear power and non-proliferation.
US officials expect to sign a pact to ensure that US arms technology sold to India is used for its intended purposes and does not leak to third countries, a step required by US law.
Such a pact would allow US firms to compete for India's plan to buy 126 multi-role fighter aircraft, which would be one of the largest arms deals in the world and could be a boon to Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co.
The United States also hopes India will announce that it has reserved two sites for US companies to build nuclear power plants, which could be worth as much as $10 billion in business for American firms.
And they want to establish a "strategic dialogue" between the two countries to be led by Clinton and Krishna, reflecting US President Barack Obama's desire to strengthen ties with India.
No one expects military-run Myanmar, also known as Burma, to obtain an atomic bomb anytime soon, but experts have the Southeast Asian nation on their radar screen.
"There's suspicion that something is going on, and increasingly that cooperation with North Korea may have a nuclear undercurrent. We are very much looking into it," says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington, DC think tank.
The issue is expected to be discussed, at least on the sidelines, at this week's ASEAN Regional Forum, a major security conference hosted by Thailand. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, along with representatives from North Korea and Myanmar, will attend.
Alert signals sounded recently when a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, headed toward Myanmar with undisclosed cargo. Shadowed by the US Navy, it reversed course and returned home earlier this month.
It is still not clear what was aboard. US and South Korean officials suspected artillery and other non-nuclear arms, but one South Korean intelligence expert, citing satellite imagery, says the ship's mission appeared to be related to a Myanmar nuclear programme and also carried Scud-type missiles.
| Exporters still long way from tax refunds 17 Jul 2009, 0144 hrs IST, Amiti Sen, ET Bureau NEW DELHI: The government is still unclear on handling exporters' long-standing demand of getting a reimbursement of state-level taxes—levies which The commerce department is looking at the possibility of introducing a new scheme for offsetting taxes that are not being reimbursed by states in this year's foreign trade policy. It is also exploring the option of factoring the taxes into the existing input duty neutralisation schemes like duty drawback and DEPB (Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme) by increasing the reimbursement rates, a government official has said. Interestingly, the measures to be taken for reimbursing the state-level taxes to exporters are also tied to the structure of the proposed goods & services tax (GST) being worked out between the Centre and the states. In the GST, which is scheduled to be implemented from the next fiscal, there could be some taxes imposed by the municipal department like Octroi and purchase tax, which may not be subsumed in it. Moreover, there is still no clarity on the issue of how the state-level GST will be reimbursed to exporters (whether it will be exempted or refunded and who will refund it). "While the GST does provide for zero-rating of taxes for exporters, we do not yet know how it will be done. There also has to be some arrangement in the interim period, till the GST is implemented, for reimbursement of state taxes. All this is being looked at by the government," the official added. With the ongoing slowdown in the world market making Indian exports increasingly non-competitive, there is more pressure from the industry on the government to come up with a reimbursement scheme for state taxes. Taxes imposed at the state level like octroi, mandi tax, sales tax on petroleum products, electricity tax and municipal cess add up to about 4%-5% of the production cost of exports, according to export body Fieo. The directorate general of foreign trade (DGFT)—the commerce department arm directly involved in framing the FTP—has already held a series of meetings with industry bodies on the issue. | ||||
No one can contest that the Companies Act, 1956, needs to be amended in keeping with the changes in the corporate world — its governance and capital structuring requirements — as well as to allow easier incorporation and quick winding up. The existing Act suffers from several infirmities that prevent healthy development of our corporate sector. In particular, the provisions for winding up sick companies have been a sticking point with the industry.
The Companies Bill 2008 was finalised after years of consultation with experts and industry. So, it may be argued a further review is not required, save for the requirements of parliamentary protocol, and that the Bill should be reintroduced and passed at the earliest, with necessary corrections to drafting errors.
The 2008 Bill, unlike repeated attempts previously to overhaul the Act, has compressed the law from 658 sections into 426 and has reorganised sections to make the Act more user-friendly. However, in doing so, the law makers have chosen to shift a vast number of provisions to delegated legislation or rules. Such a structure for the Act, which determines how companies conduct and manage their business will, without doubt, make it more responsive to the changing needs of the corporate world.
Conversely, it can be argued that too much flexibility through delegated legislation is a recipe for disaster. Can policy flip-flop be prevented? That is the question the industry and government need to grapple with before a final decision is taken on reintroducing the current Companies Bill. The existing Act needs to be updated. Perhaps, some of the more urgent changes can be brought through a short amendment Bill before the comprehensive overhaul is pushed through.
Economic growth and employment will suffer in a drought. The share of agriculture in GDP is now just 18%, and barely 12% relates to crops (the rest is animal husbandry, horticulture, etc). Despite extensive irrigation, a drought will turn agricultural growth negative, as against average growth of 4.3% in the last five years. That will directly reduce GDP growth by at least 0.5%. Its indirect impact — reduced employment and reduced rural spending on goods and services — may be greater. So, a drought could pull GDP growth well below the 6.7% achieved last year. Maybe late July rains will yet save us, but we must prepare for the worst. NREGS will help maintain employment and rural income, but it should now be targeted at drought-hit areas rather than spread evenly over every district. World food prices are rising because of fears of a poor global harvest. India has cereal stocks of 50 million tonnes, far in excess of normal needs, so checking cereal prices will be feasible. But other agricultural prices will rise — for pulses, oilseeds, fibres, eggs and meat, fruit and vegetables. We must accelerate the shift to high-value crops (like fruit) that use less water and yield more income than cereals.
CAG has prepared a framework for inserting a clause in the government's PPP agreement with private developers subjecting them to audit by the government's auditor within the next few months.
The CAG would soon ask the government to either insert such a clause in the model concession agreements or amend a 1971 law governing CAG's duties, powers and conditions of service accordingly, deputy CAG AN Chatterjee told ET.
Private developers may be asked to maintain separate accounts of each of the projects they undertake jointly with the government to facilitate audit by the CAG.
The CAG audit assumes significance for the reason that up to 40% of the cost of these projects is at times met using public funds. Besides the financial aspect, the CAG will also scrutinise the commercial assumptions, based on which the project is conceived, which at times can go wrong, causing the project to fail.
CAG audit of PPP projects was mooted last year by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who wanted the state's statutory auditor to look into the huge sum of public money flowing into the infrastructure sector through complex PPP projects. Under these projects, the private developer invests to create facilities and gets about 30 years to recoup his investment and make a profit.
The project's viability becomes questionable when assumptions such as estimated traffic goes wrong, forcing the developer to raise user-fee.
Scrutiny of the project by the CAG is expected to bring more transparency in the way PPP projects are operated.
Kalam was reportedly forced to wait on the aerobridge even as the airlines security personnel debated whether to put him under the security scanner or not. Kalam was asked to surrender before the security officials for a complete body check and remove his footwear as well.
However, the Continental Airlines defended the same saying that it was a regular security check as the policy of the company is to frisk everyone. They also went on to add that there is no special rule for VIP or VVIP's.
"He had to go through the entire security check because it is our policy to frisk everyone. This is the policy Continental Airlines follows over the world. There is no special rule for VIP or VVIP.
In fact, Kalam was cooperative and underwent the entire process which happened over a month ago," said the Public Relation Officer of Continental Airlines.
Meanwhile, Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel said that corrective measures will be taken if anyone is found wrong. He added, "We will ask for correction action from the airlines and in case they are proven wrong, we will ask them to tender and apology."
Any airline operating in India is given a set of guidelines, which includes the point that our presidents and former presidents are on the VIP list and are exempted from security checks-let alone frisking.
This kind of an incident is not one of a kind. There have been instances where Indian VIPs have been treated shabbily at foreign airports. Earlier, Pranab Mukherjee was forced to undergo security checks at the ceremonial lounge in the Moscow airport in 2008, while he was on his way back to India.
Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, known also as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India. The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005 joint statement by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.[1] This U.S.-India deal took more than three years to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, including amendment of U.S. domestic law, a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, an India-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India's first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved,[2] and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.[3] Once India brings this agreement into force, inspections will begin in a phased manner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.[4]
The nuclear deal was widely seen[by whom?] as a legacy-building effort by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh.[citation needed] But while the deal had to pass muster with the U.S. Congress twice (once when the Hyde Act was passed in late 2006 to amend U.S. domestic law and then when the final deal-related package was approved in October 2008), Singh blocked the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal. The deal proved very contentious in India and threatened at one time to topple Singh's government, which survived a confidence vote in Parliament in July 2008 by roping in a regional party as a coalition partner in place of the leftist bloc that had bolted.
On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,[5] after which the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.[6] The 45-nation NSG granted the waiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[7] The implementation of this waiver makes India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[8]
The US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28 September 2008.[9] Two days later, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country to have such an agreement with India.[10] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate also approved the civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States.[11][12] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.[13] The agreement was signed by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on 10 October.[14][15]
Overview
The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India[16] and in particular to negotiate a 123 Agreement to operationalize the 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the United States. The Hyde Act cannot be binding on India's sovereign decisions although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. reactions. As per the Vienna convention, an international treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal law such as the Hyde Act.[17][18][19]
The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinet ministers. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[20]
After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27, 2007,[21] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from the communist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.[22] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275–256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to the opposite camps.[23] The deal also had faced opposition from non-proliferation activists, anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[24][25] A deal which is inconsistent with the Hyde Act and does not place restrictions on India has also faced opposition in the U.S. House.[26][27] In February 2008 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be "consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[28] The bill was signed on October 8, 2008
Background
Parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a recognized right of access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and an obligation to cooperate on civilian nuclear technology. Separately, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed on guidelines for nuclear exports, including reactors and fuel. Those guidelines condition such exports on comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are designed to verify that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful use to weapons programs. Though neither India, Israel, nor Pakistan have signed the NPT, India argues that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. [29] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".
In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike military purposes but which could be used as a "peaceful deterrence").[citation needed] Led by the U.S., other states have set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[30] Consequently, India was left outside the international nuclear order, which forced India to develop its own resources for each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation, including next generation reactors such as fast breeder reactors and a thorium breeder reactor[31][32] known as the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor. In addition to impelling India to achieve success in developing these new reactor technologies, the sanctions also provided India with the impetus to continue developing its own nuclear weapons technology with a specific goal of achieving self-sufficiency for all key components for weapons design, testing and production.
Given that India is estimated to possess reserves of about 80,000-112,369 tons of uranium,[33] India has more than enough fissile material to supply its nuclear weapons program, even if it restricted Plutonium production to only 8 of the country's 17 current reactors, and then further restricted Plutonium production to only 1/4 of the fuel core of these reactors.[34] According to the calculations of one of the key advisers to the US Nuclear deal negotiating team, Ashley Tellis:[34]
Operating India's eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative] regime would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policy maker, has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely approximates such numbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New Delhi has the capability to produce a gigantic nuclear arsenal while subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its known uranium reserves.
However, because the amount of nuclear fuel required for the electricity generation sector is far greater than that required to maintain a nuclear weapons program, and since India's estimated reserve of uranium represents only 1% of the world's known uranium reserves, the NSG's uranium export restrictions mainly affected Indian nuclear power generation capacity. Specifically, the NSG sanctions challenge India's long term plans to expand and fuel its civilian nuclear power generation capacity from its current output of about 4GWe (GigaWatt electricity) to a power output of 20GWe by 2020; assuming the planned expansion used conventional Uranium/Plutonium fueled heavy water and light water nuclear power plants.
Consequently, India's nuclear isolation constrained expansion of its civil nuclear program, but left India relatively immune to foreign reactions to a prospective nuclear test. Partly for this reason, but mainly due to continued unchecked covert nuclear and missile proliferation activities between Pakistan, China [35][36] and North Korea,[37][38] India conducted five more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.
India was subject to international sanctions after its May 1998 nuclear tests. However, due to the size of the Indian economy and its relatively large domestic sector, these sanctions had little impact on India, with Indian GDP growth increasing from 4.8% in 1997–1998 (prior to sanctions) to 6.6% (during sanctions) in 1998–1999.[39] Consequently, at the end of 2001, the Bush Administration decided to drop all sanctions on India.[40] Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear weapons tests in 1998,[41][verification needed] it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.
Rationale behind the agreement
Nuclear non-proliferation
The proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognises India's "de facto" status even without signing the NPT. The Bush administration justifies a nuclear pact with India because it is important in helping to advance the non-proliferation framework [42] by formally recognising India's strong non-proliferation record even though it has not signed the NPT. The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal said "India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can't say that about Pakistan." when asked whether the U.S. would offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal.[43][44][45] Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[46] However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.[citation needed] The reason for this is to restrict development of nuclear weapons and to negotiate with India indirectly to ratify the NPT using another mechanism.[citation needed] Likewise, the reaction in the Western academic community was mixed. While some authors praised the agreement as bringing India closer to the NPT regime, others argued that it gave India too much leeway in determining which facilities were to be safeguarded and that it effectively rewarded India for continuosly defying the Non-Proliferation Treaty by not acceeding to it.[47]
Economic considerations
Financially, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the U.S. wants a share.[48] It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade. However, the developmental economic advising firm Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase electricity production in India. They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants.[citation needed]
Strategic
Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, has requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, i.e. having separate policies toward India and Pakistan rather than just an "India-Pakistan" policy. The United States also sees India as a viable counter-weight to the growing influence of China,[citation needed] and a potential client for which it must compete with Russia.[citation needed]
While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the world's known and economically viable thorium,[49] it possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves.[50] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers on the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow. Indian opposition to the pact centers on the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.
Agreement
On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[51]
Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[52] The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and boost U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.
On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[53] Nicholas Burns, the chief negotiator of the India-United States nuclear deal, said the U.S. has the right to terminate the deal if India tests a nuclear weapon and that no part of the agreement recognizes India as a nuclear weapons state.[54]
Hyde Act Passage in the U.S.
On December 18, 2006 President George W. Bush signed the Hyde Act into law. The Act was passed by an overwhelming 359–68 in the United States House of Representatives on July 26 and by 85–12 in the United States Senate on November 16 in a strong show of bipartisan support.[55][56][57]
The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due to amendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with a House vote of 330–59 on December 8 and a Senate voice-vote on December 9 before being passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[58][59] The White House had urged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the end-2006 lame duck session, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[60] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iran were incorporated in the Hyde Act.
In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India, President Bush, stated "Given the Constitution's commitment to the authority of the presidency to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the bill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued by saying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy."[61]
Political opposition in India
The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was met with stiff opposition by some political parties and activists in India. Although many mainstream political parties including the Congress(I) support the deal along with regional parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Rashtriya Janata Dal its realization has run into difficulties in the face of stiff political opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs, bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing their support for the deal.[62] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels. The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the Left Front in opposing the deal changed its stand after discussing with ex-president of India and scientist Dr A P J Abdul Kalam. Now the SP is in support of the government and the deal. The Indian Government survived a vote of confidence by 275-256 after the Left Front withdrew their support to the government over this dispute.[63]. There were heavy accusations against Congress regarding "buying" up of MP's, reportedly for Rs.250 million, to vote in the favor of them in the vote of confidence motion. MP's flashed currency notes of 1000 rupees that they alleged were offered to them by the Congress party in the same parliamentary proceedings in which the vote was to take place. Incidentally, results showed ten MP's belonging to the opposing BJP party cross-voting in the favor of the government.
As details are revealed about serious inconsistencies between what the Indian parliament was told about the deal, and the actual facts about the agreement that were presented by the Bush administration to the US Congress, opposition is growing in India to the deal. In particular, portions of the agreement dealing with guaranteeing India a fuel supply or allowing India to maintain a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel appear to be diametrically opposed to what the Indian parliament was led to expect from the agreement:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement in parliament is totally at variance with the Bush Administration's communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which says India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercut American leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act's stipulation—the little-known 'Barack Obama Amendment' -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate with reasonable operating requirements". The 'strategic reserve' that is crucial to India's nuclear program is, therefore, a non-starter.[64] Furthermore, the agreement, as a result of its compliance with the Hyde Act, contains a direct linkage between shutting down US nuclear trade with India and any potential future Indian nuclear weapons test. A point that is factually inconsistent with explicit reassurances made on this subject by Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, during final parliamentary debate on the nuclear deal. As professor Brahma Chellaney, an expert in strategic affairs and one of the authors of the Indian Nuclear Doctrine [65], explains:
While the Hyde Act's bar on Indian testing is explicit, the one in the NSG waiver is implicit, yet unmistakable. The NSG waiver is overtly anchored in NSG Guidelines Paragraph 16, which deals with the consequence of "an explosion of a nuclear device". The waiver's Section 3(e) refers to this key paragraph, which allows a supplier to call for a special NSG meeting, and seek termination of cooperation, in the event of a test or any other "violation of a supplier-recipient understanding". The recently leaked Bush administration letter to Congress has cited how this Paragraph 16 rule will effectively bind India to the Hyde Act's conditions on the pain of a U.S.-sponsored cut-off of all multilateral cooperation. India will not be able to escape from the U.S.-set conditions by turning to other suppliers.[66]
Indian parliament vote
On July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[67] This development came after the Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh returned from the 34th G8 summit meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush.[68] On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Left Front, whose support was crucial for the ruling United Progressive Alliance to prove its majority in the Indian parliament, continued to oppose the nuclear deal and he described their stance as irrational and reactionary.[69] According to the Hindu, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's earlier statement said "I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority," [70] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put its signature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a 'opposition-initiated no-confidence motion' or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian parliament after being told to prove its majority by the president. On July 8, 2008, Prakash Karat announced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over the decision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceeding with this deal citing national interests.[71]
On 22 July 2008 the UPA faced its first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over India approaching the IAEA for Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The UPA won the confidence vote with 275 votes to the opposition's 256, (10 members abstained from the vote) to record a 19-vote victory.[72][73][74][75]
IAEA approval
The IAEA Board of Governors approved the safeguards agreement on August 1, 2008, and the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers Group next had to approve a policy allowing nuclear cooperation with India. U.S. President Bush can then make the necessary certifications and seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[76] There were objections from Pakistan, Iran, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria at the IAEA meeting.[77]
NSG waiver
On September 6, 2008 India was granted the waiver at the NSG meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived at after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)[78][79] The Indian team who worked on the deal includes Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Shiv Shankar Menon, Shyam Saran, MK Narayanan, Anil Kakodkar, Ravi Grover, and DB Venkatesh Varma.[78]
Versions of U.S. draft exemption
On August 2008 U.S. draft exemption would have granted India a waiver based on the "steps that India has taken voluntarily as a contributing partner in the non-proliferation regime".[80] Based on these steps, and without further conditions, the draft waiver would have allowed for the transfer to India of both trigger list and dual-use items (including technology), waiving the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines.[81]
A September 2008 waiver would have recognized additional "steps that India has voluntarily taken".[82] The waiver called for notifying the NSG of bilateral agreements and for regular consultations; however, it also would have waived the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines without further conditions.[81]
The U.S. draft underwent further changes in an effort to make the language more acceptable to the NSG.[83]
Initial support and opposition
The deal had initial support from the United States, the United Kingdom,[84] France,[85] Japan,[86] Russia,[87] and Germany.[88][89] After some initial opposition, there were reports of Australia,[90] Switzerland,[91] and Canada[92][93] expressing their support for the deal. Selig S. Harrison, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Washington Post, has said the deal may represent a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state,[94] while former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph says the U.S. State Department made it "very clear that we will not recognize India as a nuclear-weapon state".[95]
Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Japan all warned that their support for India at the IAEA did not mean that they would not express reservations at the NSG. New Zealand, which is a member of the NSG but not of the IAEA Board of Governors, cautioned that its support should not be taken for granted.[25] Ireland, which launched the non-proliferation treaty process in 1958 and signed it first in 1968, doubted India's nuclear trade agreement with the U.S.[96] Russia, a potentially large nuclear supplier to India, expressed reservations about transferring enrichment and reprocessing technology to India.[97] China argued the agreement constituted "a major blow to the international non-proliferation regime".[98] New Zealand said it would like to see a few conditions written in to the waiver: the exemption ceasing if India conducts nuclear tests, India signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) additional protocol, and placing limits on the scope of the technology that can be given to India and which could relate to nuclear weapons.[99] Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries proposed similar amendments.[100]The nuclear deal was opposed by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who opined that the U.S. would be making "a dangerous deal with India"[101]
After the first NSG meeting in August 2008, diplomats noted that up to 20 of the 45 NSG states tabled conditions similar to the Hyde Act for India's waiver to do business with the NSG.[102] "There were proposals on practically every paragraph," a European diplomat said.[102] A group of seven NSG members suggested including some of the provisions of the U.S. Hyde Act in the final waiver.[103] Daryll Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the NSG should at a minimum "make clear that nuclear trade with India shall be terminated if it resumes testing for any reason. If India cannot agree to such terms, it suggests that India is not serious about its nuclear test moratorium pledge."[104]
Reactions following the waiver
After India was granted the waiver on September 6, the United Kingdom said that the NSG's decision would make a "significant contribution" to global energy and climate security.[105] U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "this is a historic achievement that strengthens global non-proliferation principles while assisting India to meet its energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner. The United States thanks the participating governments in the NSG for their outstanding efforts and cooperation to welcome India into the global non-proliferation community. We especially appreciate the role Germany played as chair to move this process forward."[106] New Zealand praised the NSG consensus and said that it got the best possible deal with India.[107] One of India's strongest allies Russia said in a statement, "We are convinced that the exemption made for India reflects Delhi's impeccable record in the non-proliferation sphere and will guarantee the peaceful uses of nuclear exports to India."[108] Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that the NSG granted waiver because of "India's rise as a global power" and added, "If such a request was made for another country, I don't think it would have been cleared by the NSG members."[109] During his visit to India in September 2008, Smith said that Australia "understood and respected India's decision not to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty".[110] German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner called India a "special case" and added, "Does this agreement send an approving message to Iran? No, it absolutely does not."[111]
Initially, there were reports of People's Republic of China analyzing the extent of the opposition against the waiver at the NSG and then revealing its position over the issue.[112] On September 1, 2008, prominent Chinese newspaper People's Daily expressed its strong disapproval of the civilian agreement with India.[113] India's National Security Advisor remarked that one of the major opponents of the waiver was China and said that he would express Indian government's displeasure over the issue.[114] It was also revealed that China had abstained during the final voting process, indicating its non-approval of the nuclear agreement.[115] In a statement, Chinese delegation to the NSG said the group should address the aspirations of other countries too, an implicit reference to Pakistan.[116] There were also unconfirmed reports of India considering the cancellation of a state visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.[117] However, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the Chinese Foreign Minister will be welcomed "as an honored guest".[118] The Times of India noted that China's stance could have a long-term implication on Sino-Indian relations.[119]
There were some other conflicting reports on China's stance, however. The Hindu reported that though China had expressed its desire to include more stern language in the final draft, they had informed India about their intention to back the agreement.[120] In an interview to the Hindustan Times, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said that "China understands India's needs for civil nuclear energy and related international cooperation."[121] Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told India's CNN-IBN, "We didn't do anything to block it [the deal]. We played a constructive role. We also adopted a positive and responsible attitude and a safeguards agreement was reached, so facts speak louder ... than some reports".[122] During a press conference in New Delhi, Yang added, "The policy was set much before that. When consensus was reached, China had already made it clear in a certain way that we have no problem with the [NSG] statement."[123] Highlighting the importance of Sino-Indian relations, Yang remarked, "let us [India and China] work together to move beyond doubts to build a stronger relationship between us."[124]
Indian reactions
Indian PM Manmohan Singh visited Washington D.C. on September 26, 2008 to celebrate the conclusion of the agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush.[125] He also visited France to convey his appreciation for the country's stance.[126] India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed his deep appreciation for India's allies in the NSG, especially the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, South Africa and Brazil for helping India achieve NSG's consensus on the nuclear deal.[127]
Bhartiya Janata Party's Yashwant Sinha, who also formerly held the post of India's External Affairs Minister, criticized the Indian government's decision to seek NSG's consensus and remarked that "India has walked into the non-proliferation trap set by the U.S., we have given up our right to test nuclear weapons forever, it has been surrendered by the government".[128] However, another prominent member of the same party and India's former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra supported the development at the NSG and said that the waiver granted made "no prohibition" on India to conduct nuclear tests in the future.[129]
A leading advocate of the agreement was India's most eminent strategic affairs analyst K. Subrahmanyam, also known for his long and controversial championing of an Indian nuclear deterrent.[130]. He argued that the convergence of strategic interests between the two nations forced such a remarkable gesture from the US, overturning its decades-long stand on non-proliferation, and that it would be unwise on India's part to spurn such an overture.[131]. He also argued that not recognizing new geo-political realities would be even more foolhardy on the part of the Indian elite.[132][133]
Former President of India and noted Indian scientist, APJ Abdul Kalam, also supported the agreement and remarked that New Delhi may break its "voluntary moratorium" on further nuclear tests in "supreme national interest".[134] However, analyst M K Bhadrakumar demurred. He said that the consensus at NSG was achieved on the "basis" of Pranab Mukherjee's commitment to India's voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and by doing so, India has entered into a "multilateral commitment" bringing it within "the ambit of the CTBT and NPT".[135]
The NSG consensus was welcomed by several major Indian companies. Major Indian corporations like Videocon Group, Tata Power and Jindal Power saw a $40 billion (U.S.) nuclear energy market in India in the next 10–15 years.[136] On a more optimistic note, some of India's largest and most well-respected corporations like Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation and Larsen & Toubro were eyeing a $100 billion (U.S.) business in this sector over the same time period.[136] According to Hindustan Times, nuclear energy will produce 52,000 MW of electricity in India by 2020.[137]
Other reactions over the issue
More than 150 non-proliferation activists and anti-nuclear organizations called for tightening the initial NSG agreement to prevent harming the current global non-proliferation regime.[138] Among the steps called for were:[24]
- ceasing cooperation if India conducts nuclear tests or withdraws from safeguards
- supplying only an amount of fuel which is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements
- expressly prohibiting the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production items to India
- opposing any special safeguards exemptions for India
- conditioning the waiver on India stopping fissile production and legally binding itself not to conduct nuclear tests
- not allowing India to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by a member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards
- agreeing that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member-state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities
The call said that the draft Indian nuclear "deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament" and also pushed for all world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race to "to stand up and be counted."[24]
Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who has taught political science at Tehran University, has argued the agreement will set a new precedent for other states, adding that the agreement represents a diplomatic boon for Tehran.[139] Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the Iranian Deputy Director General for International and Political Affairs,[140] has complained the agreement may undermine the credibility, integrity and universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan argues the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."[141] Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has suggested his country should be considered for such an accord,[142] and Pakistan has also said the same process "should be available as a model for other non-NPT states".[143] Israel is citing the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal as a precedent to alter Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules to construct its first nuclear power plant in the Negev desert, and is also pushing for its own trade exemptions.[144]
Brahma Chellaney, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, argued that the wording of the U.S. exemption sought to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. He argued India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with India being tied to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India would acquiesce to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. He concluded that instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies would be restricted through the initial NSG waiver.[145]
Consideration by U.S. Congress
The Bush Administration told Congress in January 2008 that the United States may cease all cooperation with India if India detonates a nuclear explosive device. The Administration further said it was not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items.[146] The statements were considered sensitive in India because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The State Department had requested they remain secret even though they were not classified.[147] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also previously told the House Foreign Affairs Panel in public testimony that any agreement would "have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[28] Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher and the Former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner also said the agreement would be in conformity with the Hyde Act.[148]
Howard Berman, chair of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that an NSG waiver "inconsistent" with the 2006 Hyde Act would "jeopardise" the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in the U.S. Congress.[149] Edward J. Markey, co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, said there needed to be clear consequences if India broke its commitments or resumed nuclear testing.[150]
Passage in Congress
On September 28, 2008 the US House of Representatives voted 298-117 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[151] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate voted 86-13 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[152] The Arms Control Association said the agreement fails to make clear that an Indian nuclear test would prompt the U.S. to cease nuclear trade;[152] however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any nuclear test by India would result in the "most serious consequences," including automatic cut-off of U.S. cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions.[153]
After Senate approval, US President George W. Bush said the deal would "strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner."[154] US presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, voted in support of the bill.[155]
Formal signing of the deal
There was speculation the Indo-US deal would be signed on October 4, 2008 when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in India. The deal was to be inked by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The two leaders were to sign the deal at 2 pm at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi.[156] But Mr. Mukherjee announced that India would wait for the US President to sign the 123 agreement legislation first into law and address India's concerns on fuel supply guarantees and the legal standing of the 123 agreement in the accompanying signing statement.[157]
Ms Rice was aware of the Indian decision before she left Washington. But she was very hopeful that the deal would be signed as the US state department had said that the President's signature was not prerequisite for Rice to ink the deal.[158] Rice had earlier said that there were still a number of administrative details to be worked out even as she insisted that the US would abide by the Hyde Act on the testing issue:
"There are a lot of administrative details that have to be worked out. This (the deal) was only passed in our Congress two days ago. The President is looking forward to signing the bill, sometime, I hope, very soon, because we'll want to use it as an opportunity to thank all of the people who have been involved in this," said Rice.[159]
In Washington, a Senate Democratic aide said such a delay was not that unusual because legislation needed to be carefully reviewed before being sent to the White House.[160]
US President George W Bush signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into law on October 8.[13] The new law, called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, was signed by President Bush at a brief White House function in the presence of the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Ronen Sen besides a large gathering of other dignitaries. [161] The final administrative aspect of the deal was completed after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed the bilateral instruments of the 123 Agreement in Washington on October 10 paving the way for operationalization of the deal between the two countries.[162] [163]
Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal
July 18, 2005: President Bush and Prime Minister Singh first announce their intention to enter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.
March 1, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time.
March 3, 2006: Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategic partnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006,' which stipulates that Washington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
July 28, 2006: In India, the Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue in Parliament.
November 16, 2006: The US Senate passes the 'United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act' to "exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India."
December 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law congressional legislation on Indian atomic energy.
July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and India conclude.
Aug 3, 2007: The text of the 'Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy' (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.
Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the deal in Parliament.
Aug 17, 2007: The CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the 'honeymoon (with government) may be over but the marriage can go on'.
Sept 4, 2007: In India, the UPA-Left committee to discuss nuclear deal set up.
Feb 25, 2008: Left parties in India say the ruling party would have to choose between the deal and its government's stability.
March 3–6, 2008: Left parties warn of 'serious consequences' if the nuclear deal is operationalised and set a deadline asking the government to make it clear by March 15 whether it intended to proceed with the nuclear deal or drop it.
March 7–14, 2008: The CPI writes to the Prime Minister Singh, warns of withdrawal of support if government goes ahead with the deal and puts political pressure on the Manmohan Singh government not to go with the deal.
April 23, 2008: The Indian Government says it will seek the sense of the House on the 123 Agreement before it is taken up for ratification by the American Congress.
June 17, 2008: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee meets Prakash Karat, asks the Left to allow the government to go ahead with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement.
June 30, 2008: The Indian Prime Minister says his government prepared to face Parliament before operationalising the deal.
July 8, 2008: Left parties in India withdraw support to government.
July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated to IAEA's Board of Governors for approval.
July 10, 2008: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls for a vote of confidence in Parliament.
July 14, 2008: The IAEA says it will meet on August 1 to consider the India-specific safeguards agreement.
July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board of Governors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.
July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the country's strategic autonomy will never be compromised, says Prime Minister Singh.
July 22, 2008: The UPA government lead by Manmohan Singh wins trust vote in the Lok Sabha in India.
July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate an atomic arms race in the sub-continent.
July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for an exemption for nuclear commerce.
July 25, 2008: IAEA secretariat briefs member states on India-specific safeguards agreement.
Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India- specific safeguards agreement unanimously.
Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amid reservations by some countries.
Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes up with a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.
Sept 11, 2008: President Bush sends the text of the 123 Agreement to the US Congress for final approval.
Sept 12, 2008: US remains silent over the controversy in India triggered by President Bush's assertions that nuclear fuel supply assurances to New Delhi under the deal were only political commitments and not legally binding.
Sept 13, 2008: The State Department issues a fact sheet on the nuclear deal saying the initiative will help meet India's growing energy requirements and strengthen the non- proliferation regime by welcoming New Delhi into globally accepted nonproliferation standards and practices.
Sept 18, 2008: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee kicks off a crucial hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Sept 19, 2008: America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials tells Congressional panel.
Sept 21, 2008: US financial crisis diverts attention from N-deal as both the Bush Administration and the Congress are bogged down over efforts to rescue bankrupt American banks. financial crisis in the country.
Sept 26, 2008: PM Singh meets President Bush at the White House, but were not able to sign the nuclear deal as the Congress did not approve it.
Sept 27, 2008: House of Representatives approves the Indo-US nuclear deal. 298 members voted for the Bill while 117 voted against.
Oct 1, 2008: Senate approves the Indo-US civil nuclear deal with 86 votes for and 13 against.
Oct 4, 2008: Secretary of State Rice visits Delhi. India and the US unable to ink the nuclear agreement with New Delhi insisting that it would do so only after President Bush signs it into a law, an occasion when it expects certain misgivings to be cleared.
Oct 4, 2008: White House announces that President Bush will sign the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into a law on October 8.
Oct 8, 2008: President Bush signs legislation to enact the landmark US-India civilian nuclear agreement.
Oct 10, 2008: The 123 Agreement between India and US is finally operationalized between the two countries after the deal is signed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington D C.
See also
- Indo-American relations
- Energy policy of India
- Energy security
- Foreign relations of India
- Nuclear power in India
References
- ^ Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
- ^ IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement
- ^ India Safeguards Agreement Signed
- ^ INFCIRC/731
- ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal - International Herald Tribune". Iht.com. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/01/europe/EU-Nuclear-India.php. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "outlookindia.com | wired". Outlookindia.com. http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=321896. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver - MarketWatch". Marketwatch.com. http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/nuclear-suppliers-group-grants-india/story.aspx?guid={BA6E4022-DBC8-4B43-B9DE-62608913CB8A}&dist=hppr. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts". Afp.google.com. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "House of Reps clears N-deal, France set to sign agreement-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/USA/House_of_Reps_clears_N-deal_France_set_to_sign_agreement/articleshow/3536151.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". Indianexpress.com. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-france-ink-nuclear-deal-first-after-nsg-waiver/368048/. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Finally, it's done: India back on the nuclear train-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US_Senate_approves_Indo-US_nuclear_deal/articleshow/3551691.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Senate approves nuclear deal with India - CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/us.india.nuclear/. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ a b "Bush signs bill on N-deal on October 8". United States Office of the Press Secretary. 2008-10-08. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081008-4.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-08.
- ^ Done Deal: India, US seal landmark nuclear pact CNN-IBN
- ^ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee At the Signing of the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
- ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
- ^ The Indo-U.S. nuclear debate from www.gulfnews.com
- ^ ITGD Bureau. "India Today - India's most widely read magazine". Indiatoday.digitaltoday.in. http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&issueid=63&id=11755&Itemid=1§ionid=4. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "War of words & world views-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/War_of_words__world_views/articleshow/3261765.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics - livemint.com". http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/10012202/At-G8-Singh-Bush-reaffirm-c.html. Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
- ^ BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | India and U.S. confirm nuclear pact
- ^ India: Government crisis deepens over U.S. nuclear deal
- ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7519860.stm. Retrieved on 2008-07-23.
- ^ a b c Arms Control Association: "Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster"
- ^ a b Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: What's Next?
- ^ AP: Democrat pushes for India nuke conditions
- ^ Markey: U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Vote Near Impossibility This Year
- ^ a b Economic Times of India: Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too
- ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/embassy_non_proliferation.htm. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
- ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group". http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/nsg/index.html.
- ^ "A Thorium Breeder Reactor". http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-133-1-1-32.
- ^ "India unveils 'world's safest nuclear reactor'". http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm.
- ^ "P.18, paragraph 1, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF). http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf.
- ^ a b "P.31-P.36, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF). http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf.
- ^ "Report says China offered widespread help on nukes". http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-08-28-china_N.htm?csp=34.
- ^ "Against Nuclear Apartheid". http://www.indianembassy.org/pic/js/js(foreignaffairs).html.
- ^ "Bermudez, Joseph S. Jr. 1998. A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK". http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op2/lrdes.htm#ghauri.
- ^ "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program - 1998: The Year of Testing". http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html.
- ^ "Achieving 9% Growth Rate in India: A Growth Paradigm". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID365440_code030120500.pdf?abstractid=365440&mirid=1.
- ^ "U.S. Ready to End Sanctions on India to Build an Alliance". http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Media/2001/aug/U_S_%20Ready%20to%20End%20Sanctions%20on%20India%20to%20Build%20an%20Alliance.htm.
- ^ {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118726909/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0}
- ^ "Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch". Economic Times. 2008-07-26. http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Media/2000/pm_us/Armed%20India%20Can%20Help%20Stabilize%20Asia.htm. Retrieved on 2008-08-03.
- ^ [1][dead link]
- ^ "Russia hints at smooth sail for India at IAEA". Ibnlive.com. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/russia-hints-at-smooth-sail-for-india-at-iaea/70099-3.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:nlT8QsQA48QJ:www.ipcs.org/countIssueBrief.jsp%3Fissue%3D31+india+willing+to+sin+npt+as+a+nuclear+weapons+state&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=in
- ^ "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030200183.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-03.
- ^ Müller, Jörn (2009). "The Signing of the U.S.-India Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy". Göttingen Journal of International Law. pp. 179-198. http://gojil.uni-goettingen.de/ojs/index.php/gojil/article/view/26/M%C3%BCller2. Retrieved on 2009-04-05.
- ^ "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901847.html. Retrieved on 2005-07-20.
- ^ "Information and Issue Briefs – Thorium". World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
- ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 – Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm. Retrieved on 2006-06-01.
- ^ "Bush, India's Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2006/Mar/02-806725.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-02.
- ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". The Hindu. http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/28/stories/2006072812290100.htm. Retrieved on 2006-07-29.
- ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
- ^ U.S. can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns
- ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=November&x=20061117171748idybeekcm0.2382471. Retrieved on 2006-11-17.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-411. Retrieved on 2006-07-26.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-270. Retrieved on 2006-11-16.
- ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=December&x=20061208173518adynned0.1525385. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-541. Retrieved on 2006-12-08.
- ^ "Nuclear deal with U.S. made easier for India to digest". Hindustan Times. http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1839928,001301790001.htm. Retrieved on 2006-11-09.
- ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/bush-seeks-to-allay-indias-concerns-over-ndeal/28903-3.html. Retrieved on 2006-12-19.
- ^ "IndianExpress.com :: 'The question is can we get a better n-deal? No’". http://www.indianexpress.com/story/239308._.html. Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
- ^ Indian government survives vote
- ^ "The Pioneer > Columnists". Dailypioneer.com. http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=KANCHAN196.txt&writer=KANCHAN&validit=yes. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Brahma Chellaney a strategic affairs expert, is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research. He was one of the authors of the nuclear doctrine submitted to the government for finalisation". rediff.com. http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/apr/27brahma.htm?zcc=rl. Retrieved on 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Stagecraft and Statecraft: India's retarded nuclear deterrent". Chellaney.spaces.live.com. http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!788.entry. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
- ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI (timesofindia.indiatimes.com). 2008-07-09. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_submits_draft_safeguards_pact_to_IAEA/rssarticleshow/3215970.cms. Retrieved on 2008-07-08.
- ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/19pm.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
- ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". www.thehindu.com. http://www.thehindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071050340100.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-08.
- ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807081440.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-11.
- ^ "Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote". The New York Times. 2007-07-23. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/world/asia/23india.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin.
- ^ Indian gov't wins trust vote in parliament_English_Xinhua
- ^ Default
- ^ Post trust vote victory, India Govt. to move forward with reforms, nuclear deal - International Business Times
- ^ "IAEA board gets India's safeguards agreement". www.rediff.com. 2008-07-09. http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jul/09ndeal20.htm. Retrieved on 2008-07-08.
- ^ N-deal: Getting NSG nod may not be easy
- ^ a b "NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA". CNN-IBN. September 6 2008. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/nsg-clears-nuclear-waiver-for-india/73011-3.html?from=rssfeed. Retrieved on 2008-09-06.
- ^ "INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER". NDTV.com. September 6 2008. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064332. Retrieved on 2008-09-06.
- ^ Carnegie Endowment (August 2008): Text of U.S. NSG Proposal on India
- ^ a b NSG Guidelines
- ^ Arms Control Association (September 2008): Revised Indo-U.S. NSG Draft
- ^ Khabrein: U.S. plans nuclear rewrite to build NSG consensus
- ^ UK backs India's nuke energy ambitions | The Australian
- ^ "France to back India at IAEA meet-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/France_to_back_India_at_IAEA_meet/articleshow/3233901.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ India Times: Japan to recognise India as nuclear state
- ^ "Russia, India Close on Nuclear Deal". Moscowtimes.ru. 13 February 2008. http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1009/42/302215.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ German leader: Much scope for India-Germany cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy - International Herald Tribune
- ^ The Hindu News Update Service
- ^ RTTNews - Political News and Chatter, World Political News, Forex News, Earnings Revisions
- ^ "Switzerland to support India's case at NSG- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Switzerland_to_support_Indias_case_at_NSG/articleshow/3372695.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ Canada, India exploring ways to co-operate in nuclear energy. | PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. (October, 2007)
- ^ Times of India: Canada behind U.S., Britain in wooing India, says expert
- ^ How to Regulate Nuclear Weapons
- ^ Arms Control Today (May 2006): Interview With Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph
- ^ "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race". CNN IBN. 2008-07-24. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indias-ndeal-hurdle-pak-warns-of-arms-race/69471-2.html?xml. Retrieved on 2008-07-24.
- ^ Times of India: India's NSG battle to focus on nuclear tech
- ^ Times of India: India sees red as China voices n-deal concerns
- ^ The National Business Review: NZ wants conditions written into nuclear agreement
- ^ Gulf Times: NSG 'will seek clear conditions'
- ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html
- ^ a b Daily Times: Nuclear suppliers propose terms for U.S.-India deal
- ^ Telegraph: Vienna blow to nuclear deal
- ^ AFP: Nuclear suppliers fail to reach consensus on U.S.-India deal
- ^ Sep 6, 2008 (September 6, 2008). "AFP: Britain hails landmark US-India nuclear deal". Afp.google.com. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h_W2NyrBzDRaCnMi5-HFUuzjLG0g. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "U.S., India welcome NSG's agreement to lift nuclear trade embargo on India_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/06/content_9815475.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "New Zealand compromises on India nuclear deal_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/08/content_9853075.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "The Hindu : International : Russia welcomes NSG waiver for India". Hindu.com. http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/09/stories/2008090956631800.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "'India got the waiver because of its rise as global power'-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India_got_the_waiver_because_of_its_rise_as_global_power/articleshow/3472841.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "India understands uranium stance: Smith - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. September 12, 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/12/2363213.htm?section=justin. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ DW Staff (jen). "Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 09.09.2008". Dw-world.de. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3629002,00.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "NDTV.com: China, the main spoiler". Ndtv.com. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064302. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "China state paper lashes India-U.S. nuclear deal | Markets | Reuters". In.reuters.com. http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINPEK7195620080901. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "China was India's secret enemy at Vienna | What NSA says". Ibnlive.com. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/china-was-indias-secret-enemy-at-vienna/73025-3.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&ParentID=725c91cd-5ecf-44c4-8e4f-d5bd5791c1e4&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions
- ^ "NSG should address aspirations of others too: China". Indianexpress.com. http://www.indianexpress.com/story/358166.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "India runs into the great wall of China at NSG". Ibnlive.com. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india-runs-into-the-great-wall-of-china-at-nsg/72999-3.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Will discuss NSG U-turn with China Foreign Min: NSA". Ibnlive.com. http://www.ibnlive.com/news/gandhigiri-china-minister-honoured-guest-says-pranab/73058-3.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Beijing 'disappoints' Delhi-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Beijing_disappoints_Delhi/articleshow/3453544.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "The Hindu : Front Page : Waiver enables member states to provide India full civil nuclear cooperation". Hindu.com. http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/07/stories/2008090760781100.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions&strParent=strParentID
- ^ "China denies blocking India's nuclear waiver bid | Markets | Reuters". Uk.reuters.com. http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKDEL16441220080908. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "We decided to back India in NSG before Vienna meeting: China- Hindustan Times". Hindustantimes.com. http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?sectionName=Cricket&id=bd343cf5-dc29-4841-8c69-60b9e6a2febf&&Headline=%27We+had+decided+to+back+India+in+NSG%27&strParent=strParentID. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Let's move beyond doubts to build ties: China to India - Express India". Expressindia.com. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Let--s-move-beyond-doubts-to-build-ties--China-to-India/359300/. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Manmohan arrives in Washington, to meet Bush". Thaindian News. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/manmohan-arrives-in-washington-to-meet-bush_100100078.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Manmohan leaves for home winding up 9 day US, France visit". The Hindu. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200810010342.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-10.
- ^ "India thanks NSG's Big Four for 'unique' waiver - Sify.com". Sify.com. http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14753330. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Gulf Daily News". Gulf-daily-news.com. http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=228340&Sn=WORL&IssueID=31171. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "The Hindu : National : Advantage India, says Brajesh Mishra". Hindu.com. http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/07/stories/2008090754040800.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/asia/10india.html
- ^ http://www.aerospaceindia.org/Journals/Monsoon%202005/Indo-US%20Relations%20in%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf
- ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/13ndeal.htm
- ^ http://www.samachaar.in/Politics/Stalling_nuclear_deal_will_be_a_historical_mistake_23244/
- ^ Hindustan Times: N-deal, NSG waiver good for country
- ^ "Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan". Atimes.com. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JI09Df02.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ a b "India Inc sets eyes on $40 bn nuclear energy market- Indicators-Economy-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/India_Inc_eyes_on_40_bn_nuclear_energy_mkt/articleshow/3460143.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ "N-trade: It's a $40 billion opportunity-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/N-trade_Its_a_40_billion_opportunity/articleshow/3469511.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ The Hindu: Tighten draft waiver for India
- ^ Afrasiabi: Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote
- ^ Second Meeting of Experts of The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (July 2004): Statement By His Excellency Dr. Ali-Asghar Soltanieh
- ^ Forbes: India moves a step closer to U.S. nuclear pact
- ^ ISIS (July 2008): "Press Trust of India - India dismisses Pak talk of arms race due to N-deal"
- ^ Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the International Organizations (July 2008): Letter from Pakistan to the IAEA Board of Governors and Nuclear Suppliers Group
- ^ Hindustan Times: Now, Israel wants NSG rules changed
- ^ "Serious implications for India in NSG draft". In.rediff.com. http://in.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/15brahma.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ Indian Express: Was India misled by America on nuclear deal?
- ^ Washington Post: In Secret Letter, Tough U.S. Line on India Nuclear Deal
- ^ Department of State: Answers to questions about Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement
- ^ The Hindu News Update Service
- ^ Economic Times of India: Congressional approval may not be automatic; dissenters speak out
- ^ Times of India: US House approves Indo-US nuke deal
- ^ a b Bloomberg: Bush Wins Approval in Congress for Priority India Atomic Accord
- ^ The Hindu: Nuclear test will have serious consequences
- ^ "Bush hails Senate passage of Indo-US nuclear deal-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bush_hails_senate_passage_of_Indo-US_nuclear_deal/articleshow/3551793.cms. Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
- ^ Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal
- ^ "N-deal faces last-minute glitch". Deccan Harald. http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Oct42008/scroll2008100493498.asp?section=frontpagenews.
- ^ "Condoleezza Rice leaves without inking deal". Economic Times. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Condoleezza_Rice_leaves_without_inking_deal/articleshow/3561357.cms.
- ^ Sunday Times (October 5, 2008), Rice is here but deal still not on table, Times of India
- ^ "Rice arrives, nuclear deal not to be signed today". NDTV.com. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080067616&ch=10/4/2008%2012:00:00%20PM.
- ^ "Rice in India, may not sign nuclear deal". Reuters.com. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4930E420081004.
- ^ "Bush signs India-U.S. nuclear bill into law". The Hindu. 2008-10-10. http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/10/stories/2008101060940100.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-13.
- ^ Gollust, David (2008-10-10). "US, India Sign Civilian Nuclear Accord". Voice Of America. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-10/2008-10-10-voa66.cfm. Retrieved on 2008-12-24.
- ^ Times of India (October 11, 2008), India, US seal 123 Agreement, Times of India
External links
U.S. Government links
- U.S. Government Printing Office: The text of the Hyde Act
- U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Questions for the Record submitted to Assistant Secretary Bernger by Chairman Tom Lantos
- U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Documents from the White House related to the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement
India Government links
- Indian Ministry of External Affairs (August 2007): Text of the preliminary Indo-U nuclear agreement (meaindia.nic.in)
Nuclear Suppliers Group links
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (August 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (November 2007): INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (March 2006): INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2
Other links
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Obama unveiled a sweeping regulatory overhaul in June aimed at improving government oversight of banks and markets to avert a repeat of the financial crisis
"The problem that I've seen, at least, is you don't get a sense that folks on Wall Street feel any remorse for taking all these risks," Obama said in an interview with PBS television.
"You don't get a sense that there's been a change of culture and behavior as a consequence of what has happened. And that's why the financial regulatory reform proposals that we put forward are so important," he said.
Obama said the planned regulatory reforms would prevent Wall Street firms from taking the "wild risks" they had taken before the financial crisis. Shareholders should also have the right to weigh in on huge bonuses paid to executives, he said.
Wall Street paid more than $18 billion of bonuses in 2008, a year in which it needed trillions of dollars of taxpayer support.
Asked if he was concerned about the jump in profits reported by banks Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Co, Obama said his administration had less leverage over them now that they had repaid government bailout money.
He said the measures put in his place by his government to stabilize the economy were working, despite unemployment projected to rise above 10 percent within months.
"I think we've put out the fire. The analogy I use sometimes is, we had this beautiful house. And there was a fire. We came in and we had to hose it down.
"The fire is now out, but what we've discovered is, we need some new tuckpointing, the roof's leaking, the boiler's out, oh, and by the way, we're way behind on our mortgage," he said.
"If you cut into flesh long enough, eventually you find bone," said David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff in Toronto. "Cost cutting is not a bottomless pit."
Firing people, introducing hiring freezes, halting investments
A slew of companies reported better-than-expected first-quarter results because aggressive budget slashing more than made up for falling sales. According to Rosenberg, 40 per cent of companies missed their top line expectations in the first quarter.
| Also Read |
| → Skills upgraded, tailor-maid for the job |
| → Didn't get a promotion? Here's what you need to do |
| → High-level job seekers see good in recession: Survey |
And as the bulk of results for the most recent quarter hits in the next two weeks, many US companies are expected to do the same again. Some already have.
Perhaps the biggest example so far has been General Electric Co, which managed on Friday to report earnings that whizzed past expectations despite a drop in revenue that was more dramatic than Wall Street had predicted. The major reasons: cost cutting and a dip in its tax rate.
Mind you, investors can be smart to the numbers game. They question the quality and sustainability of such results -- and despite the earnings beat GE's shares dropped more than 5 per cent on Friday.
Another example was Yum Brands Inc, parent of the Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC chains, which last Tuesday also surpassed earnings forecasts but was light on the revenue side. A cut in its full-year sales forecast triggered a decline of about 8 per cent in its share price over the rest of the week.
Mattel Inc posted a bigger-than-expected 82 per cent jump in quarterly profit as cost cuts offset a sales decline that was also much steeper than forecast. But the market was heartened by the toymaker's ability to control costs, and its shares rose 7 per cent.
"So far, earnings season is good, but if you were to call it revenue season, it'd be more of a mixed bag," said Peter Boockvar, an equity strategist at Miller Tabak & Co in New York. "What this shows is that companies are able to deal with cost structure, but that the revenue is light shows that we're still in a difficult economic environment."
Although cutting costs can help a company hunker down for the downturn, academics and economists warn in the long term cutting too deeply can hamper its ability to compete and grow.
"If you cut too much then you will be very poorly positioned when the recovery comes," said Russell Walker, a risk management professor at the Kellogg School of Management.
Others, however, warn additional cuts are needed to match the fact Americans are saving more and have less access to credit.
| Eclipse village shudders & prays | ||
| NALIN VERMA | ||
Patna, July 20: The world may be coming to Taregna to watch Wednesday's total solar eclipse, but the villagers themselves will be keeping their eyes firmly shut — in fear and worship. Science and faith are jostling for space in the village 25km south of Patna from where ancient astronomer Aryabhatta studied the heavens 1,500 years ago. At Taregna's new 75-bed, four-storey referral hospital, which is yet to be functional, arrangements have been made to accommodate the visiting scientists, tourists and journalists. The nearby sun temple too is making its arrangements —for jap and puja to assuage the pain its "living god" will suffer soon after he rises on July 22. "The science and technology department has opened a special counter at Taregna to facilitate the scientists and astronomers from France, Italy, Germany and England besides (US space agency) Nasa and (Indian space agency) Isro," chief minister Nitish Kumar said on his return from the village. "Jab bhagwan surya par graham lag raha hai to aam admi ka kya hoga (Think what's going to happen to ordinary people when Lord Sun himself is getting eclipsed)," trembled Anil Kumar, secretary of the local sun temple. "The Mahabharat battle too had coincided with a solar eclipse," he recalled. Ranjit Kumar, a villager, said: "We'll undergo ritual bathing three times during the eclipse. We'll keep on worshipping till the sun regains full shape and then gather at the temple to donate food grain and clothes to the poor and to Brahmins." The excitement and curiosity the government and scientific bodies are trying to generate around the event have passed the likes of Anil Kumar and Ranjit Kumar by. Still, scientists' declaration that the total solar eclipse can be best viewed in India from Taregna has come as a blessing for the village on the Patna-Jehanabad-Gaya road which had become a hotbed of Maoist activity in the '80s and '90s. Nitish has now announced a "knowledge university" in Taregna in the name of Aryabhatta, and promised to carve out a new district from the region. "I am extremely happy to learn that the celestial event has brought back the old glory to Taregna, where Aryabhatta had set up his observatory," he said. Patna district magistrate Jitendra Kumar Sinha said security personnel had already been deployed around the hospital building. "Officials too have been assigned the job of taking care of the visitors." "There will be full security for the visitors in and around Taregna," Bihar science and technology secretary Ravikant said. Nitish too will be camping at the village with his officials and security guards to watch the eclipse. Many visitors, including some of the Nasa and Isro scientists, however, will be watching the skies from Patna, where too the total solar eclipse will be visible. The Srikrishna Science Centre, a science museum affiliated to the Union science and technology ministry, has made arrangements for the scientists on its roof. It has made separate arrangements for laymen and students at the city's Gandhi Maidan. "We have distributed special glasses free of cost at all the schools in Patna and adjoining areas," museum director Anurag Kumar said. "Astro-photographers from Calcutta too have asked us to let them use our telescope to take pictures." |
| US clause not new, bid now to cut red tape | ||
| OUR BUREAU | ||
New Delhi, July 20: Foreign minister S.M. Krishna and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton today suggested that they had agreed on end-use verification of arms Americans sell to India. But a senior Indian official said: "It is arrangement, not an agreement", drawing a distinction between a common understanding and a process that concludes with the signing of a document. If indeed India has agreed in principle to such verification, it is not the first time New Delhi has signalled its willingness to allow intrusive inspections of US-origin equipment in its arsenal. End-use monitoring or verification for military hardware that the US exports is mandated by US law. India has agreed to its conditions for each of the military weapons or systems it has procured from the US since 2002. Krishna and Hillary have left it to diplomats to work out the fine print of the "letters of acceptance" that have to be exchanged. Officials would not say how they are working around the sensitive issue of "physical on-site verification" — inspection of American military systems with India at the place where they are located. The current urgency for the end-use verification agreement (EUVA) is driven by two factors. First, big US companies (such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing) are worried that unless an agreement is reached, they may not be able to grab military business from India — such as an Indian Air Force order of $12 billion-plus for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft. India is likely to import about $30 billion (Rs 1.44 lakh crore) worth of weapons and platforms in the next five years. Second, the Indian military is also in a hurry to diversify its sources of procurement. Traditionally, India has been dependent on Russia and, even now, more than 60 per cent of its military hardware is of Soviet/Russian origin. Like the US, the European countries and Israel are also very strong competitors for Indian military deals. The current discussions between India and the US were for an "omnibus" EUVA, at India's insistence, that will cover all future imports of US military equipment and, therefore, do away with the bureaucratic delay involved in negotiating the agreement for each transaction. A sovereign country can consider the conditions under an EUVA "intrusive". As a source in the Indian defence establishment involved in the negotiations put it: "Ideally, we would not like to sign such an agreement at all. But we understand the US has its laws and expect that they will understand our concerns." The inspections of military equipment that the US exports are required under its Arms Export Control Act and its Foreign Assistance Act. The laws were further strengthened in the 1990s after the US could not account for the exports of Stinger shoulder-fired missiles channelled to the Afghan Mujahideen through Pakistan in their war against Soviet occupation. In course of time, the Stinger came to be used against US forces post-2001. The US also implements conditions of end-use verification to prevent exports of its military equipment to third countries that may not be friendly to it. In February this year, at the Bangalore air show, the director of the US Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency said the US has such agreements with about 80 countries. US inspectors, sometimes called "Tiger Teams", verify the use of weapons and military platforms that have been exported under two programmes called "Blue Lantern" and "Golden Sentry". Under the Blue Lantern programme, inspectors verify equipment sold by a company to the buyer — for instance in the case of P8I Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft that India has contracted with Boeing. Under the more intrusive "Golden Sentry" mechanism that governs exports under the Foreign Military Sales — or government-to-government — deals, US inspectors will want to verify the use of US military equipment from "cradle-to-grave", that is, from the time of their despatch to their delivery, to their use and to their eventual disposal. This requires "physical onsite verification" and makes security officials in the Indian establishment touchy. Indian officials say that they can agree to physical verification or a verification through an examination of records. For instance, in the VVIP Boeing Business Jets, they claim that the self-protection suites of the aircraft that the President and Prime Minister fly, among others, will be dismantled before US inspectors board them. But, as in the case of artillery locating radars, India will not agree to inspections in sensitive zones such as those near the Line of Control at Jammu and Kashmir. Among the major projects/equipment that have been delivered by the US for which New Delhi has accepted the conditions of end-use monitoring — despite its reluctance — on a case-by-case basis are: 1)12 AN/TPQ 137 Firefinder weapon-locating radars (made by Raytheon) contracted for $146 million in April 2002 (by the NDA government). 2) USS Trenton, now the INS Jalashva, landing platform dock, sold by the US to the Indian Navy in 2006 for about $48.44 million. 3) Three Boeing Business Jets for VVIP transports with the Indian Air Force headquarters communication squadron contracted for about $937 million plus an additional $40 million for self-protection suites. The aircraft were delivered and are now in use. 4) Six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules transport aircraft for special operations contracted in 2008 for $1 billion. (All the above are under the "Golden Sentry" programme.) 5) Eight Boeing P8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft contracted for the Indian Navy for about $2.2 billion in January this year and selected through a competition in which Boeing pipped EADS Casa's Airbus 319. (under the Blue Lantern programme). |
| Advani cries to Clinton on Pak |
| SANJAY K. JHA |
| New Delhi, July 20: L.K. Advani has found a shoulder to cry on — America. The leader of the Opposition today left political circles aghast after he turned a courtesy call by Hillary Clinton into a grudge session against the Manmohan Singh government. The BJP veteran told the US secretary of state that the Prime Minister had broken national consensus by agreeing to de-link action on terrorism from the Indo-Pak composite dialogue, dragging a third party into domestic discord. Advani, who according to party sources asked Clinton to understand India's concerns, also nearly succeeded in doing something that both his party and India are dead against: involvement of America in bilateral ties with Pakistan. No other BJP leader was present during the 45-minute talks. Later, senior party leader Sushma Swaraj said Clinton heard Advani out but didn't react. Sushma said Advani forcefully raised the joint statement India and Pakistan released in Egypt last week, though Clinton had come to discuss other issues like environmental change. The Indo-US nuclear deal, she added, was not discussed at all, nor was the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although many BJP leaders The Telegraph contacted did not find any problem with Advani's decision to raise an internal discord with a foreign guest, at least one wondered why foreign policy experts like Jaswant Singh or Yashwant Sinha were not consulted. The two former foreign ministers are sulking these days and usually stay away from helping the party on matters that require their expertise. Advani said he had experience in handling matters related to cross-border terrorism as he was a former home minister and told Clinton he was surprised that violence-racked Balochistan — where Pakistan has intermittently alleged a covert Indian hand — had been mentioned in the joint statement. He said the inclusion of Balochistan suggested that India was in the dock for fomenting trouble in Pakistan. "We should not try to placate others by ignoring the facts," Advani was quoted as telling Clinton. "Such wrong moves will not improve ties between India and Pakistan." A key paragraph in the joint statement that critics have seized on as a climbdown under US pressure says: "Both Prime Ministers (Singh and Pakistan's Yousaf Raza Gilani) recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed..." Sushma said Advani told Clinton his party was not against dialogue and recalled how former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had gone to Lahore by bus and then President Pervez Musharraf was invited to Agra despite the Kargil incursion. But there had been a consensus within the country after the Mumbai attacks last November that Pakistan would have to show results on cracking down on terror, and the joint statement sought to disrupt that accord, Advani told Clinton. Those critical of Advani's decision to raise the joint statement with Clinton said it was tantamount to lodging a complaint against the Prime Minister with the US administration. Advani, they added, went a step further, cautioning that commitments made by the government in disregard of the national consensus would not be effective and asking American to appreciate India's concerns. Sushma said Clinton did not at any point try to confront Advani. She also repeatedly stressed that the former BJP chief was satisfied with the meeting. |
| TOO MANY HEARSES - The war in Afghanistan is coming home to roost |
Anabel Loyd |
|
Back here, I find myself regretting that this small country still feels the need to be in the first tier internationally instead of settling for muddling along in a laissez-faire Latin style and avoiding responsibility for others than ourselves. The war in Afghanistan has come home to roost as the hearses carrying the repatriated bodies of teenage soldiers are driven through the silent crowd-lined streets of Wootton Bassett, just a few miles up the road from us in Wiltshire. Yesterday, we heard the eulogies to the highest ranked officer so far to be killed in Helmand province and his widow's set face is on the front page of most of the papers this morning. The prime minister, the foreign secretary and their cohorts continue to assure us that our retro adventure in Afghanistan is stopping terror coming again to our shores, and we are torn between our total disbelief and our need now to support our troops fighting a deathly and thankless battle in a foreign field. Scandalously, given the vast sums of money being spent on so disastrous a war, it seems that the troops do not even have the hardware they need for success, always supposing that success was more than an undefined figment of the political imagination. Has anyone read a history book? Rory Stewart, now a still youthful Ryan Family professor of the practice of human rights at Harvard University, with his knowledge of local landscapes and languages in Afghanistan based on a long walk across the country and work both as a diplomat and, more latterly, as founder of the Turquoise Mountain NGO, is one of the few people criticizing the government from a position of in-depth knowledge that is rivalled by few, if any, commentators and no politicians. He sees international policy led by the United States of America towards Afghanistan based on narrow and largely incorrect premises, counter-terrorism and the assumption that a ruined and hostile country with no recognizably concrete political system, economy or institution, remains a threat to international security through the unholy alliance of the Taliban and al-Qaida. As it is, the Taliban are only strengthened by the chaos of a government of no power existing solely on foreign say-so and al-Qaida can covertly organize attacks abroad from far more convenient territory, including inside the US and the United Kingdom. The solution, based on an assumed moral obligation and an arrogant belief in the West's ability to succeed against all the odds is excessively ambitious and as wrong-headed as were British views of the threat to India from Russia via Afghanistan in the mid-19th century. Quoting John Lawrence, a son of the Victorian Empire after all, if ever there was one, Stewart concludes with Lawrence's opinion that "our proper course is not to advance our troops beyond our present border, not to send English officers into the different states of Central Asia, but to put our own house in order, by giving the people of India the best government in our power, by conciliating, as far as practicable, all classes, and by consolidating our resources". In contemporary parlance, Stewart sees the argument as: "The presence of Nato special forces, the challenging logistical and political conditions in Afghanistan and lack of technological capacity are likely to impede al-Qaida from posing a significant threat to UK or US national security. Instead, development in south Asia should remain the key strategic priority for the UK government." Stewart is positive that development is the only useful way for the West to continue its determined and unbearably costly involvement in Afghanistan. 'State-building' is a hollow aspiration and one that could only succeed based on an Afghan national movement, not on foreign force. Instead, foreign troops should be reduced to, if the West considered them essential, Special Forces only, to continue to exclude al-Qaida from the country, this process legitimized by generous development projects that may, over 30 years or more, help to balance Afghan society to find its own equilibrium. As he says, this will, to some, seem like a betrayal of good Afghans, leaving society and individuals prey to extremism and abuse, but it is in fact both their and our least bad option albeit understood by only a handful of experts who really understand the country and its history. Unfortunately, few, if any, of our politicians are amongst their number. The rise in the foreign body-count advocates for Stewart's argument with the UK public, but god knows how many more funeral cortèges will parade through local streets before this or any government has the moral courage to face facts and the current outcry over shortage of helicopters in the field becomes irrelevant. Meanwhile, as gamesmanship abounds in the Ashes tests, we may all shortly be dying like flies of swine flu. We should no longer visit our general practitioners but stay at home and consult online doctors from our sick beds, and, for fear of infecting others if we go out for prescriptions, receive online remedies, virtual cures, presumably. I can't work out how bad this 'pandemic' really is. Predictions for deaths are similar to those from any other form of flu, although I had not realized how many people do die from the flu virus each year, but the government is enjoying getting us into a panic about something that may be relatively minor. I, for one, have taken up my doctor's offer of packets of extraordinarily expensive Tamiflu as insurance, in case a member of the family is struck down and virtual treatments don't measure up. Anyway, I hope to escape, at least until the autumn flu season, by coming to India next week and heading for Kashmir and Ladakh. Srinagar may not be the place for escape from the complications of religious and political rifts, but it remains extraordinarily beautiful, and it is paradise enough looking out over the lake in the early morning. The nail-biting drive up to Leh is a spectacular experience, anticipated by my height-fearing husband, on his first trip, by an escapist stockpiling of sleeping pills, the means of unconscious travel. |
We returned last weekend from an all too brief stay in Italy, the never-never land of Silvio Berlusconi and his enormous ego. The straitjacket of northern European Protestantism would never permit the ongoing antics of this corrupt and, from a distance at least, laughable billionaire, but in Italy, political criticism may be vocal, Latin and loud, yet it is also ineffective. In any case, roughly 50 per cent of the population continues to rejoice in their aging leader's complicated love life, his remarkable hold on the avenues of power and publicity and aspire to similar success. His critics may despise him but are unable or unwilling to fight him, and the end of the G8 summit at the earthquake-ruined L'Aquila a couple of weeks ago found him crowing again like Peter Pan over his triumph. The truth is that Italy has its problems as the recession bites and unemployment grows, but the Italians thrive on alternative solutions and creative, not to mention illegal, shortcuts to the system that involve an impressive black economy and most people closing their eyes if not to reality, to strict legality.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment