Deadly Non-neutral Acid? (DNA)

If you’re like me, you’ve been fingerprinted when entering or leaving the United States as a foreigner. Then you knew that the US government had you identified by everything you ever touched in the US. Whether it be a snack bar in a supermarket or your touching your date’s face before he/she was found murdered.

Now, the anti-criminalization policies have gone one step further. Forget foreigners. If you are a suspect in a crime and are arrested, the US government has the cheek to swab your inside cheek to take a sample of your DNA to add to their database. Forget if you’re guilty or not. That is apparently immaterial.

I’m surprised that all the privacy groups who worry about Internet data gathering, browser cookies, browsing history, online search history records, etc. by Google and other software companies are keeping mum about this issue. This is your DNA we’re talking about - nothing can be more personal than that. And to let the government collect and store your DNA even if you’re innocent - what more intrusion of privacy can there be? Is that how socio-cultural issues work - the Internet makes news, conventional stuff doesn’t?

In other news, you can now (apparently) check if you suffer from bipolar disorder by ordering a test “spit kit” from Psynomics. They will test your DNA and will mail you the test results. We already have pregnancy tests for women, sugar-level tests for diabetics, and blood pressure checkers readily available even in third-world countries like India. Is technology moving diagnosis more and more from physicians to consumers? Will consumers be able to assess if they need a cardiac bypass surgery or an appendectomy by themselves? Will physician’s diagnoses become obsolete some day in the future? Something to ponder about.

Dubai: World’s Trade Center?

These images tell a story.

The Twin Towers, a symbol of US capitalistic superpower, have collapsed. The US is busy fighting the war against terror.

In the meanwhile, Burj Dubai, the tallest free standing structure in the world, just reached a soaring 574.5m (1,885 ft) with 154 completed stories. It is predicted to be the tallest man-made structure in the world, as well as the tallest building by any measure. It’s official web site is here. Note the ‘.com’ address of its URL, it’s not a cryptic ‘.ae’ address.

Here are some of the amazing developments in Dubai:

• Dubai’s revenues from oil and natural gas currently account for less than 3% of the emirate’s revenues.
• Dubai Mall aims to be the largest mall in the world when completed.
• Its port, Jebel Ali, constructed in the 1970s, has the largest man-made harbor in the world.
• The Burj al-Arab, a luxury hotel in Dubai, at 321 meters (1,053 ft), is the tallest building used exclusively as a hotel.
• Dubai World Central will have the Dubai World Central International Airport, the world’s largest passenger and cargo hub.
• It is a hub for service industries such as IT and finance. Dubai Internet City, combined with Dubai Media City includes IT firms such as EMC Corporation, Oracle Corporation, Microsoft, and IBM, and media organizations such as MBC, CNN, Reuters and AP.
• The World is a man-made archipelago of 300 islands in the shape of a world map currently being built off the coast of Dubai.
• Dubai Financial Market’s trading volume stood at about 400 billion shares worth US$ 95 billion. The DFM had a market capitalization of about US$ 87 billion.
• The Palm Islands in Dubai are the three largest artificial islands in the world.
• Dubai Healthcare City is scheduled to open by 2010 to promote medical tourism.
• Dubailand is an entertainment complex under development, to include mega-tracts of various kinds of attractions.
• The Dubai Waterfront is proposed to become the largest waterfront and largest man-made development in the world.

Is anyone observing the contrast? While the US is struggling to fight a war against terror, a country right in the middle east is stealthily rising economically - without relying on oil - in the global economy. The contrast is stark. The US has to realize and focus on its core strengths, if it wants to remain an economic superpower, and not be swayed to distraction with the war against terror.

Climate Changes Nobel Peace Prize?

There is wide speculation that Al Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize today, and the betting odds are highly in his favor. Let’s get this straight. Alfred Nobel’s Will says that the Peace Prize shall be given to:

the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.

Sure, climate change has the potential to cause wars, but aren’t there people who have been instrumental in fighting for peace in existing wars? Ironically, this is happening when a British court judge ruled that Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth contained nine errors.

What are the various opinions being expressed?

Reuters:

“Such an award would fall under the expanded concept of peace but the activity can be linked to the climate-conflict combination and is highly timely,” said NRK veteran journalist Geir Helljesen who has a solid record of tipping prize winners.

Please enlighten me if anyone understood that.

Salon: Why Al Gore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize

What’s world peace got to do with global warming? Perhaps everything. Or it will if things don’t change fast — if, in 10 or 20 or 40 years devastating floods and droughts displace millions of refugees and spur nations and tribes to desperate bloodletting. At which point, no one will have the slightest doubt why members of the renowned Scandinavian foundation thought former U.S. Vice President Al Gore was an obvious choice for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s one ‘perhaps’ and two big ‘ifs’ in that statement. Since when were Nobel Peace Prizes awarded based on ifs?

Tennessee Center for Policy Research:

Handing a Nobel Prize to Al Gore, a proven hypocrite on the issue of climate change, would be an injustice to the many people bravely fighting for peace and freedom throughout the world. We discovered that while Gore told us to curtail our energy use, he guzzled more electricity at his posh Nashville mansion in a month than the average American family used in a year.

I don’t know about the hypocrite part, but I do think that it will be an injustice to the other deserving folks.

The Investors Business Daily (quoted on an Australian site) writes on how the stature of the Nobel Peace Prize has deteriorated over the years, and says:

“Just what the Nobel committee really needs, another fraud in its pantheon of laureates. If Gore wins the prize as expected, it will mark another step in the long politicized decline of a once highly regarded international award.”

Most environmentalists are gaga over the news. Brandon Keim, from Wired Magazine, stands out among the lot. A staunch supporter of the fight against climate change epitomizes my thoughts behind this post:

If the Nobel committee does choose Gore or Watt-Cloutier or the IPCC, they’ll certainly send a message to the world. A good message, in fact. But it would still be a shame if the meaning of the Nobel Peace Prize itself became a casualty of global warming.

If he does get it, the Norwegian Committee will have screwed up the AlGorethm for the Peace Prize.

Further Reading: Common misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize

Weekend Flea Market 5-Oct-07

An assortment of stuff I came across in cyberspace, offered second hand, for anyone who may be interested.

• If you haven’t read it already, Thomas Friedman’s penultimate op-ed 9/11 Is Over, is a must-read.
• China has now started blocking all RSS feeds as well.
• A woman has been sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for committing adultery. Kamangir and a group of Iranian bloggers are trying to stop that from happening.
• Microsoft launches HealthVault, an online repository where consumers can store medical information for free in an encrypted database. For once, Microsoft beats Google to something!
• Ashok talked about “Collective Intelligence” in the comments discussion on my post “Runaway Train“. Techcrunch reveals that a new site, CrowdChess, has launched. You log on and sign up for a game. Each side is made up of teams of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people. Anyone on a team can suggest the next move, and the move that gets the most votes is the one that is played out. Like Erick, I too wonder if any number of amateurs can ever beat a grandmaster in this scenario! What do you think?
• MMP has his own insightful analysis of why he blogs. He has developed an interesting universal model that shows how we all live in blogging CAVES. Check it out.
• Check out Ashok’s take on the various categories of Indian bloggers to have a healthy laugh at The Blogosphere Zoopedia.
• A US Senate Judiciary Committee has passed the Free Flow of Information Act. There is still a long way to go and final outcome seems uncertain at this stage. See Are Blogging Journalists Shielded? for background information.
• The Economist paints a sordid and bleak picture of the challenges involved in revamping Mumbai. A must-read if you care about Mumbai.
• Financial Times puts Rahul Gandhi’s first populist action after ascending to the Congress secretaryship as the backdrop to describe how political short-termism is hampering retail reforms.
• I had pondered on a few questions regarding cricket’s status in India in my 10 Thoughts on T20 World Cup Win post. Social psychologist Ashis Nandy has some interesting answers in his interview with Outlook magazine. He says there are only three areas of our life—cricket, cinema (Bollywood) and crime that recognize capability wholeheartedly and unconditionally.
• I have written about the contempt of court ruling regarding Justice Sabharwal. Vinod Mehta brings greater clarity to the issue and wisely cautions that if the media and the judiciary engage in a war, the only winners will be the politicians.
• To bring this potpourri full circle back to the US, Rajinder Puri takes on a lot of controversial issues in his take on the decline of the US. Some of his comments resonate with Shefaly’s comments in the discussion on Right To Free Speech: What does it mean?.

Right to Free Speech: What does it mean?

The controversy started last week, when Verizon (one of the two largest telecom carriers in the US), refused to make their network available for a text message program advocating abortion. The program allows people to sign up for messages if they choose, and is a completely voluntary exercise of choice for consumers. Verizon would have earned (some) money from the business, but instead refused it.

The move led to a storm of protests. As NYT observed:

Legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages.

The dispute is a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of “net neutrality” — whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers.

CNET opined:

The idea that a telecom carrier will refuse to carry messages based on content is incredibly scary. Could they decide to broadcast messages sent by the Democratic party, but not Republicans? Christian messages but not Jewish? Everybody has a point of view that could be viewed as “controversial or unsavory” to someone else. Apparently the First Amendment does not in itself prohibit such censorship, but we should not accept such an action, which has been likened to the mass censorship of political speech by the Chinese government, no matter whether the carrier agrees with the content or not. Laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmission on phone lines do not apply to text messages. It’s time to change that law to protect free speech, no matter how it is communicated.

In a swift turn-around, Verizon reversed its decision and decided to carry the message. The Verizon public policy blog attributed the reversal to a dusty, internal policy, but remained ambivalent about whether any such policy will continue to exist in the future.

In the US, newspapers have the right to accept or reject any advertisement for decades. Newspapers are a publishing medium, clearly protected by the First Amendment, as they are liable for what they publish. Radio stations have a right to reject and censor what spots and ads they run (an antiwar campaign was turned down during Vietnam and the court upheld the station’s right to refuse). What about search engines like Google and Yahoo? In February this year, a federal judge settled that question when it gave the same right to search engines as that of newspapers: thus, Google can refuse to accept any ad, without any explanations required.

Free speech and net neutrality advocates like Timothy Karr on Huffington Post are lobbying to convene hearings on telecom censorship policies. If the telecom companies were purely private enterprises, a ruling either way might have been simpler. Being a government regulated industry adds further complications, as Richard Koman argues.

One of the earliest advocates (I could find) who saw all this coming back in 1995, was Nicholas Johnson in the Wired Magazine:

We find ourselves a little late in the free speech day, having already lost our rights to speak through dominant newspapers, broadcast stations and cable.  But insisting on the total separation of content and conduit as the Internet is privatized may still be our best hope.  It’s the only free speech forum left for those of us without $200 million in spare pocket change to buy our own newspaper or TV station.

The court has already ruled that Google is not your public square. Are Verizon and AT&T public squares?

Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Mammoth Task Ahead

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal has become like the story of The Blind Men and an Elephant.

Let’s see how.

#1: Manmohan Singh hanging to the Tail

Thinking that this was the end of the rope for energy ambitious India, Singh decided to hold on to it. He warned others “not to miss the bus“.

Alas, he didn’t know he’ll have to cling on to it for his dear life as he had no idea of the ride that ensued. He probably hoped this was not the end of the rope for his government.

#2: Bush Administration riding on Top

Used to being a superpower, the Bush Administration thought it was on top of the situation.

With someone having read about The Dragon & The Elephant and told Bush about it, he thought he could make friends with the Elephant to fight the Dragon.

Alas, some observers thought he was trying to tame it instead of befriending it!

Having bet their money on this slow moving beast is now worrying them.

#3: Indian Right (BJP) clinging to the Ear

Looking at Bush on top, it first decided to join the ride, but the ears flip flopped, and so did the BJP. Having held onto the ears for so long, it thought everyone around would be all ears when they protested and brought down the parliament.

#4: China holding the Leg

China has been aware of this elephant for ages, and fears being trampled by it. While not openly attacking the elephant, it tries to surreptitiously overpower it. It’s afraid of striking a spear into the leg, fearing that the elephant may go berserk.

#5: Indian Left on the Trunk

The Left soon realized that it can easily arm-twist the trunk. Riding in the air for a while distanced them from ground reality, not to mention getting used to a lot of hot air.

Finally, the Left decided to blow its own trumpet, giving a deaf ear to the discordant trumpets from their own group.

Moral of the Story? Feel free to use the comment box!

123 Agreement vs. Hyde Act

There have been claims and counter-claims by many regarding whether the 123 Agreement will supersede the Hyde Act, or vice versa, in case there are differences of opinion over the deal. Here are three independent clarifications on this issue.

The Week

K. Subrahmanyam writes in The Week: The opponents and supporters harp on the Hyde Act. Supporters say the agreement does not mention the Act at all, and that its provisions are binding not on India, but only on the US. The US legislation has binding and non-binding provisions, and the US administration implements only the binding portions. The US president, in his signing statement, has made it clear that he would ignore the non-binding provisions of the Act. …

…According to Article VI of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, obligations of an international agreement supersede provisions of domestic law.

The Hindu

Siddharth Varadarajan clarifies in The Hindu:

“Some commentators have noted that the Indian 123 agreement does not contain a sentence found in Article 2.1 of China’s 123 agreement with the U.S., namely that “the parties recognize, with respect to the observance of this agreement, the principle of international law that provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Thus, it is felt the U.S. administration can always claim the Hyde Act’s restrictions trump the 123 agreement’s more generous commitments.

Though the Indian negotiators had an identical line in all their drafts and tried till the end to incorporate it in the final agreed text, the U.S. remained unyielding, claiming that Congress would shoot it down. But the Indian side did manage to push through another article, 16.4, that the agreement “shall be implemented in good faith and in accordance with the principles of international law.” The phrase “principles of international law” is a clear reference to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 27 of the Convention, which, as a part of customary international law, does not have to be cited to be applicable, states: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

India Today

An article, “Tactical Hold”, in India Today (2nd Sept) states: ” On the argument of which statute takes precedence - the Hyde Act or the 123 Agreement - Government expects to come out the winner. Much of the Government’s confidence stems from the fact that there is weighty legal opinion in the US to back its assertion that the 123 Agreement, not the Hyde Act, will be the final binding agreement between the two countries.

Sean Murphy, professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, explains, “An international agreement like the 123 if approved by the Congress does take precedence over any earlier statute. So to the extent if there were any changes that the 123 Agreement brings about those would supersede the earlier Act”. Frederic L. Kirgis, Emeritus Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law and a constitutional diplomacy expert, concurs when he says, “Whatever the authorized representatives of the two countries have agreed upon would supersede any other previous agreement or any internal law of either country as a matter of international law”.

Summary

It is clear that even in terms of fine prints and legalities, we’re still safe with respect to our sovereignty, our choice not to sign the NPT, and are not bound by the restrictive clauses of the Hyde Act. More importantly, as I’ve noted before, in times of international disputes, it is not these laws that really matter, it is the diplomatic relationship.

Those who oppose a strategic relationship with the US will never like closer cooperation between the two countries - whether economic, strategic, civilian, or military. They will only end up isolating us, keeping us bogged down fighting a proxy war with China through Pakistan, and curbing our phenomenal growth.

Those who are in favor of closer Indo-US ties, and have been concerned that India should not compromise its sovereignty and freedom by succumbing to the US - be rest assured. Our negotiators have done a good job so far. They need our support, not politicized, mindless, rhetoric.

Technorati Tags: india, america, politics, indo-us nuclear deal, current affairs, 123 agreement, hyde act

Share this post :

Response to CPI(M) Objections against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal

Background

Woke alerted me to a “concern questionnaire” by the CPI(M) on the Indo-US nuclear agreement. The CPI(M) has asked for “clarification” on 9 issues. It wants answers to 9 questions, that are detailed in this article in the DNA. It is not clear if the journalist herself believes in those objections or is simply vomiting those concerns morsel-by-morsel.

To be clear what we’re talking about, the actual, full, text of the 123 agreement between India and the United States on the nuclear deal can be downloaded here (PDF). If you’re not interested in the detailed response to each of their objections, jump to the Summary. Now, let’s get to work with the CPI(M) objections!

Response to CPI(M) Objections

#1: The CPI(M) was concerned that the deal required India to pursue a foreign policy congruent to that of the US; and to secure India’s full and active participation in US efforts to sanction and contain Iran.
There is no reference to any aspect of foreign policy in the 123 agreement. The 123 agreement does not mention Iran at all. This “objection” or “concern” is the result of viewing everything through “imperialist” glasses and being completely misguided as a result. Also, see response to Opposition #2 in my Trilogy Part 3.

#2: The deal would not allow full cooperation on civilian nuclear technology, denying India a complete fuel cycle. India will continue to face an embargo on importing equipment and components related to enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production, even when such activities are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and for peaceful purposes. Article 5(2) in the 123 agreement makes this very clear.

Article 5(2) of the 123 agreement states (in full):
“Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an Amendment to this agreement. Transfers of dual-use items that could be used in enrichment, reprocessing or heavy-water production facilities will be subject to the Parties’ respective applicable laws, regulations, and license policies.”

Where is the embargo? Has the writer of the article actually read the 123 agreement? Instead of applauding the terrific job done by India’s negotiating team (which the whole world is surprised about), our critics are twisting interpretations to suit their pathetic objectives!

#3: Steps to be taken by India would be conditional upon and contingent on action taken by the US. It is clear from the 123 agreement itself that all restrictions are not being lifted. Embargoes are still in place, and the US President is still required to annually certify to the Congress that India is in “full compliance” with the congressionally imposed non-proliferation conditions.

There is no “embargo” in the 123 agreement. How can a requirement between the US President and the US Congress be a part of an international deal between US and India?! The 123 agreement is between the US and India. It does not, and cannot, contain any clauses regarding what the US President needs to do for the US Congress. The 123 agreement has no such requirements. It is the Hyde Act that has reporting requirements for the US President, not certification requirements.

#4: The US will not take the necessary steps to change its laws or align the NSG rules to fulfil the terms of the India-US nuclear deal. The 123 agreement does not change the requirement of the Hyde Act that the NSG exemption for India be “made by consensus” and be consistent with the rules being framed by the US. The legislation requires the administration to ensure that the NSG exemption for India is no less stringent than the US exemption.

The US cannot and is not willing to take the necessary steps to change the rules of the 45-member NSG. Why should it? It is up to India to diplomatically deal with each NSG member, many of whom are already willing to make all the exceptions in India’s favor (except China)! Observe the repeated references to the Hyde Act and attempts to blur the distinction between the Hyde Act (an internal US legislation) and the 123 agreement (a bilateral agreement).

Further, clause 5.6(a) of the 123 states: “As part of its implementation of the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement the United States is committed to seeking agreement from the US Congress to amend its domestic laws and to work with friends and allies to adjust the practices of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to create the necessary conditions for India to obtain full access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continual access to fuel supplies from firms in several nations”. To further guard against any disruption of fuel supplies, the United States is prepared to take additional steps. Read about them in clause 5.6 (b).

What more can you ask for?

#5: The additional protocol referred to in the original agreement would be intrusive and not India-specific…One prerequisite to bring the deal into force is that India and the IAEA should have “concluded all legal steps required prior to signature” to enforce inspections “in perpetuity”. A second prerequisite mentioned in the 123 agreement is for India to make “substantial progress” on concluding an additional protocol with the IAEA.

Article 5.6 (c) states (in full):
“In light of the above understandings with the United States, an India-specific safeguards agreement will be negotiated between Indian and the IAEA providing for safeguards to guard against withdrawal of safeguarded nuclear material from civilian use at any time as well as providing for corrective measures that India may take to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign nuclear supplies. Taking this into account, India will place its civilian nuclear facilities under India-specific safeguards in perpetuity and negotiate an appropriate safeguards agreement to this end with the IAEA.”

Article 10.2 states (in full):
“Taking into account Article 5.6 of this Agreement, India agrees that nuclear material and equipment transferred to India by the United States of America pursuant to this Agreement and any nuclear material used in or produced through the use of nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipments or components so transferred shall be subject to safeguards in perpetuity in accordance with the India-specific Safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA and an additional protocol, when in force”.

First, the term “India-specific” is recurring in the agreement because India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No such exceptions have been made to any nation in the history of mankind.

Second, to expect the United States, which has a binding legal agreement with the IAEA, to make exceptions to India, that would make its legal agreements with the IAEA illegal, is foolish.

Third, Concluding all legal steps required prior to signature is obviously required. What is the specific problem with that?

Fourth, as you can observe, the “inspections in perpetuity” that are referred, are only in the context of the India-specific Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, which has not been negotiated or signed yet. This only goes to show that we have a long way to go before we enjoy the benefits of this deal. But to castigate this signed agreement on the basis of an as-yet-unsigned agreement, shows that the critics of this deal do not share the long term objectives, but only choose to criticize whatever we have achieved so far.

#6: India is placing its facilities in perpetuity while the US President can prevent the transfer to India of equipment, materials or technology from other participating governments in the NSG, or from any other source.
Oh, I thought the CPI(M) was opposing the deal because it would make India a subservient country to the US! I wasn’t aware that they knew we could also deal with other nations like communist Russia!

India is only placing its civilian facilities under safeguards in the 123 agreement. The US President can (and should have the right to) prevent transfer of equipment, materials, or technology. When this 123 agreement wasn’t in place, we’re still living in exactly this kind of isolation. Also see responses to Opposition 2 and 6 in Part 3.

#7: India’s fissile material stockpile will be restricted.

Talks only about the Hyde Act. India has never negotiated and has not been part of the deliberations behind the Hyde Act. See response to Opposition 2 in Part 3.

#8: The deal includes physical verification and suitable access to be provided by India to US inspectors, and not just IAEA safeguards. US end-use monitoring is reflected in the 123 agreement’s Article 12 (3). Also, the provision for US fallback safeguards in Article 10 (4) states, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.”

Article 12 (3) states (in full): “When execution of an agreement or contract pursuant to this Agreement between Indian and United States organizations requires exchanges of experts, the Parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territories and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations, and practices. When other cooperation pursuant to this Agreement requires visits of experts, the Parties shall facilitate entry of the experts to their territory and their stay therein consistent with national laws, regulations, and practices.”

So much for US end-use monitoring. The agreement doesn’t state any criteria for deciding when expert inspections would be ‘required’. Again, as mentioned in my response to Opposition 2 in Part 3, it is the diplomatic relationship that matters and is the key deciding factor.

Article 10 (4) states (in full): “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures.”

Observe that the article is not about US, but about IAEA. However, our critic chooses to term it as “the provision for US fallback safeguards”. Now, what is wrong with this clause in the 123 Agreement? Here, an ostracized country that has refused to sign the terms of joining the IAEA (the NPT), is agreeing that if, under some circumstances, the IAEA doesn’t approve of its safeguards, then it will consult and agree (in other words negotiate) on appropriate verification measures.

I have not touched upon this earlier, but I probably should. Nuclear proliferation is a very real concern. The possibility of nuclear weapons landing in the wrong hands is enormous. No country can afford to say it will use nuclear power without being transparent about it to some extent. Those who do - like Iran and North Korea - face economic sanctions.

#9: The military program will also be subject to monitoring by the IAEA and the US. The 123 agreement does not change that requirement in the Hyde Act.
This is complete misrepresentation, exaggeration, and disinformation. The 123 agreement does not refer to monitoring of military facilities by the IAEA at all.

Regarding the other objections with respect to the Hyde Act, see response to Opposition 2, Part 3.

Summary

It is clear from these nine objections of the CPI(M), that either they’re misinformed about the 123 agreement (a fault of the Congress government) or they’re immune to the sensitivities involved in negotiating an international agreement. Their scholarly stand of nitpicking over clauses of the 123 agreement, picking words and phrases out of context, and misrepresenting them towards irrational conclusions is just a political gimmick. It is instructive to note that the Left has not negotiated anything with any other country ever. It has only negotiated with other Indian political parties towards the objective of getting representation in the Indian parliament.

It works because hardly anyone from the Indian public questions anything like “Article X.Y(Z) restricts India’s right to…”. Remember that the Left leaders are intellectual, bookish, and scholarly. It is precisely their intellectual stance that makes them appealing even to the educated Indians. The need of the hour is to really dig into their so-called intellectuality and question them. Unfortunately however, our public will read stories and stories and articles upon articles describing each and every movement, behavior, nod, glance, and expression of a Bollywood hero being freed from prison, and spend time voting via SMS about them, rather than read the 123 and oppose the Left. That is why they wield such a power in India.

Photo Credits: The subject of this post deserved a photo of a Left leader, but I decided against (dis)gracing my blog with it!

Technorati Tags: india, america, politics, indo-us nuclear deal, communism, current affairs

Share this post :

123 Trilogy: Part 3

My recent two posts on the Indo-US Nuclear deal have been revised and expanded on The Great Indian Mutiny, as part of a Trilogy. It would be a good idea to read the first two parts before this one. Please see: 123 Trilogy: Part 1, and 123 Trilogy: Part 2.

We have examined the Indo-US deal in the political context in Part 1. We then studied it in a social context in Part 2. In this concluding Part 3, let us evaluate possible outcomes of the present imbroglio, by doing a SWOT analysis. The boundaries of this SWOT analysis are constrained by the Indian political scene - we will not consider events within the US, or IAEA/NSG, or examine other non-political aspects of the agreement.

Strengths

What reasoned arguments can be used to silence the opposition?

Opposition 1: The deal will not further Left’s strategic interests (including closer cooperation with communist countries), but instead will advance closer cooperation with the US and surrender our sovereignty to the imperialist US. Further, this will be deemed to have happened without the Left being taken into confidence or it being given a chance to make their concerns matter.

Response: Not entirely true. In fact, the opposite may become true. India may end up doing the most business with Russia, possibly some with the French, and none with the US. Why? Because no US supplier will sell anything to India until we pass a Liability Protection Law. Since the Left’s support will be required to pass any law in the present Government, it can virtually stop any business and cooperation with the US by voting against it. Such a law would not matter for Russia, because Russian companies are backed by government guarantees and are immune to liability lawsuits.

Opposition 2: The Hyde Act has various restrictive clauses against India and undermines India’s sovereignty.

Response: We cannot do anything about the laws passed by another country, and we are not bound by those laws. What we can do something about and what we are bound by is the agreement or treaty that we enter into. India has signed the 123 agreement, not the Hyde Act. In cases of conflict, there are disputes over whether the 1954 US Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act will supersede the 123 Agreement or the other way around. There is no unanimous clear answer.

However, what really matters is that the US law does not matter much. In most cases, it is the diplomatic relationship that matters. The US is known to have bypassed and violated its own laws when required.

Opposition 3: All international treaties and agreements should be approved by Parliament before being signed by the Indian government.

Response: Good and valid point. We can take up this issue in Parliament and debate it. The current 123 agreement however, is the logical outcome of a strategic initiative by the previous opposition government (which was also prepared to sign the CTBT). It is therefore not a partisan agreement, but in harmony with the nation’s strategic interests as believed by the opposition as well.

Opposition 4: Nuclear energy is more expensive than other sources of energy like thermal, hydro, etc. Further, it will not meet a significant proportion of our energy requirements.

Response: Yes, but this is a narrow and myopic view. We need to explore all sources of energy, period.

Opposition 5: The 123 agreement does not allow India to conduct nuclear tests. If we conduct a nuclear test, our fuel supplies will be discontinued.

Response: The 123 agreement does not say anything about nuclear testing by India. If India feels nuclear testing is necessary, it retains its sovereign right to do so. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The scenario will not be different than it was before the 123 agreement. Rather, even if our supplies are cutoff by the US in the event of a nuclear test, the US has committed itself to help find other nations to restore our supply!

Opposition 6: The current American President may be satisfied by the reporting requirements and continue to uphold the 123 agreement. What is the guarantee that future American Presidents will do the same?

Response: There is no, and can be no guarantee. If the US were to call off the deal for whatever reasons, the worst case scenario is that we would be back into nuclear apartheid - as is the state today. (There are several other possibilities better than the worst case, even if the US were to back off in the future).

Also, conversely, if India at any point in the future, deems the 123 agreement as detrimental to its interests, we can terminate the deal with a 1-year notice. It is not binding upon subsequent Indian governments either.

Weaknesses

There is not much public awareness in India about the Indo-US nuclear deal. In the event of early elections, the nuclear deal is not likely to be a poll issue at all. This leaves the passage of the nuclear deal vulnerable to external factors that can influence elections, like terrorist strikes, organized protests against retail chains, and so on.

The Left is not open to reasoned debate because of ideological compulsions. The strengths listed above are probably, mostly impotent. Also, the possibility of the Left compromising its stand appear remote.

Opportunities

This is one opportunity for India to get rid of the Left. Two separate opinion polls have showed them getting much lower number of seats if fresh elections were held. This is not an opportunity for the deal per se, but certainly opens up lots of other opportunities!

Threats

The obvious threat is that the government will buy time and freeze any progress on the deal. This will lead to a deadlock and the Left would have achieved their statist ambitions. There will be an inordinate delay on any progress towards operationalizing the deal and India will have succumbed to the arm-twisting tactics of the Left.

The other threat is that the Left can withdraw support and bring down the UPA government. If that happens, there will be no progress on the agreement. Even though two independent polls suggest that the Left will lose significantly if elections were held, they’re quite capable of committing suicide with their myopic ideological glasses blurring all clarity. Another threat is that the Congress, sensing that it can get a much larger number of seats in a fresh election, will itself dissolve the Lok Sabha.

Summary

At this time of writing, the above SWOT analysis shows that, under the present political circumstances, it is difficult for the Indian government to operationalize the 123 agreement. Our politicians are infamously irrational, and we can never tell what will happen. But it will be a matter of national shame for all of us, if India as a nation doesn’t live up to its promises. We are going to simply talk the talk and let others walk all over us.

Photo Credit: Zee News, NDTV

Technorati Tags: india, america, indo-us nuclear deal, energy, politics, communism

Share this post :

Ratan Tata Speaks Out (123 Trilogy Part 2)

Please read an updated and expanded edition of this post at The Great Indian Mutiny.

Echoing the sentiments and thoughts expressed by K. Subrahmanyam as I’d written earlier about, it is now the turn of Ratan Tata to speak out about the significance of the Indo-US nuclear deal and what may be the implications if we back out. Again, in an interview with Karan Thapar, Tata says:

Calling the India-US civil nuclear deal “the best possible thing that has happened to India”, noted industrialist Ratan Tata has warned that political uncertainty caused by opposition to the pact could adversely impact the country’s growth.

“I’m very, very sorry that on various issues this is being beleaguered. I really believe that if it doesn’t happen the only people who would be happy and benefit by it not happening will be the people of Pakistan and the people of China.”

Again, echoing what I’d earlier written about how FDI will be impacted:

Tata also felt that the deal not going through would also impact the inflows of foreign direct investment. “I think it could, because I think there would be repercussions and there would be reactions.”

He’s one of India’s foremost industrialists who’s actually trying to invest capital into West Bengal. What does he think of the Left?

Tata also felt that the time had come for the Left parties to rethink their age-old strategies, given the influence they have over economic policy, reforms in labor laws and foreign investment as well as overall growth.

“Today we have to reinvent ourselves constantly. Religions reinvent themselves, the Soviet Union reinvented itself, China reinvented itself economically. The time has come when we need to re-look at ideologies, re-look at past legacy and ask ourselves is that relevant today.”

I think more and more influential Indians should speak out publicly about this issue. Industrialists, Bollywood, artists, litterateurs, historians, anyone whose voice will be heard by the Indian public.

I’m completely with Ravi Srinivasan of the Hindustan Times on this issue:

Amidst all the sound and fury of the ‘debate’ over the Indo-US nuclear deal, one section of opinion has been conspicuous by its silence: India Inc.

Which is a great pity, because corporate India has the ability and the resources to not only engage constructively in the discussion, but bring some much needed rationality and gravitas to the current babel of ideological opportunism and jingoistic posturing which is passing for ‘debate’ on this critical issue. As the principal financiers of both the political process and individual players, they also have the necessary leverage. Which they are not using.

The Left is planning a nationwide protest campaign on the streets against the nuclear deal. The people who’re going to protest are obviously going to be pawns in their political gangs, who do not understand the issue at all. It is only if famous and popular Indian personalities speak out, will the Left’s protest be neutralized.

You have to admit how clever China is! Do you want to destroy a country’s economic ambitions? Do you fear the international repercussions if you openly wage a war? Have you wondered why there is no communist Left in Pakistan, a country China heavily invests in? Welcome to the as-yet-undiscovered method of waging war: communism. Simply fund and inspire a communist group in your enemy nation, and then sit back, relax, and glee!

Photo Credit: BBC/AFP

Technorati Tags: india, america, US, indo-us nuclear deal, china, politics, world affairs, energy

Share this post :