Hyderabad
18 March 2012
As India negotiates the diplomatic minefield that is West Asia, questions are being asked of the government as to whether and how it could engage differently with Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, without having to taking sides or pick and choose one over the other.
New Delhi would have you believe that the overlapping tensions in West Asia, manifested in the Israel-Iran stand-off over the latter's nuclear ambitions, the proxy war being played out in Syria between a Shiite Iran and the Sunni-bloc led by Saudi Arabia, or more generally the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy, constrict India's options.
In an example of some nimble Indian diplomacy, the government despatched external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia in order to offset any adverse fallout from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposed visit to Iran later this year. However, the same government chose in its wisdom to support a UNSC resolution against Syria.
While there is merit in New Delhi's argument, an influential section of the Indian diplomatic community contends that the ongoing investigation into the attack on an Israeli envoy in New Delhi or the threat of US sanctions on Indian entities post-June 28 for not reducing oil imports from Iran should not deter the government from pursuing what it deems is in its enlightened national interest.
"The US not only does not choose between India and Pakistan but actually assists our adversary in many ways, so why should we forego our limited relationship with Iran for the sake of the US?" wondered Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary.
"Do Iran and Saudi Arabia choose between us and Pakistan? If at all they have been historically closer to Pakistan than to us. If Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust are objectionable, the Wahabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia is objectionable too. We should safeguard our energy relationship with Iran as best as we can despite US and EU sanctions and the Arab position," Mr Sibal told this newspaper.
Increasingly, diplomats who have observed or served in the region insist that India's relationship with Iran should stand on its own feet and not linked to its relations with Saudi Arabia. They maintain that whatever the differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Sunni conflict that is building up, India does not need to take sides or feel compelled to choose.
They cautioned against a repeat of 2005 when New Delhi jettisoned its ties with Tehran in its narrow pursuit of the India-US nuclear deal. While some claim that Iran's rise as a regional power is inevitable, others cite the significance of Iran as land bridge to Afghanistan and beyond as a case in point.
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
NSG tightens rules, but US reassures India
New Delhi
24 June 2011
Access to sensitive nuclear technologies used for the enrichment of uranium or the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel just got tougher, with the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approving new guidelines to limit their transfers only to the countries complying with their non-proliferation obligations and that meet agreed standards for nuclear safeguards, safety and security.
On the face of it, the three non-NPT signatories of India, Pakistan and Israel could be affected by the amendments, but, equally, other countries of concern could be the targets, too. However, the US department of state has clarified that the new restrictions should not be construed as detracting from the "unique impact and importance" of the US-India nuclear deal or diluting the US' commitment to full civil nuclear cooperation with India.
Simply put, the new guidelines would not impinge or adversely affect the "clean" NSG exception given to India in September 2008 or restrict India's access to enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies. Also, India remains on course for becoming the 47th member of the nuclear cartel, which was formed in 1974 in response to the nuclear test by India earlier that year.
A US state department press release said, "The NSG's NPT references, including those in the ENR guidelines, in no way detract from the exception granted to India by NSG members in 2008 and in no way reflect upon India's non-proliferation record." It also noted that "efforts in the NSG to strengthen controls on the transfers of ENR are consistent with long-standing US policy that pre-dates the civil nuclear agreement [with India] and have been reaffirmed on an annual basis by the G-8 for years."
Further, it iterated the US' support for India's membership of the NSG and three other export control regimes -- the Australia Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, and the Missile Technology Control Regime -- in a phased manner. The US was understood to have circulated a note on India's membership of the NSG, proposing in it that signing on to the NPT need not be a mandatory criterion. India recognises that becoming an NSG member will take time because the group operates by consensus, and all members, China included, need to unanimously make a decision.
On the eve of the NSG's meeting, India had voiced deep reservations about a move by the cartel to withhold the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology to the non-NPT signatories. It had contended that doing so would dilute the import or the message of the exemption granted to India in 2008. Recently, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had discussed this, and other matters, with Ellen Tauscher, the US under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs, in Vienna. Ms Rao had also impressed upon her American interlocutor that India's membership of the four export control regimes should be a package deal.
US declassified documents say Pakistan funded and armed Taliban
New Delhi
15 August 2007
A collection of newly-declassified documents of the United States
Government has revealed that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by
Pakistan. The documents also link Harkat ul-Ansar, a terrorist group funded directly by
the Government of Pakistan, to terrorist training camps shared by Osama bin Laden in
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The documents conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of both
military and financial assistance to the Taliban by Islamabad before and after the
Taliban takeover of Kabul in 1996.
A relevant paragraph from the documents confirms the sentiments of the Indian security
establishment. It reads: "Consistent reporting indicates Pakistan provides both military
and financial assistance to the Taliban. Pakistan's primary goals are to achieve strategic
depth with regard to India, and securing access to Central Asian trade routes. Cultural
ties also exist between the Taliban leadership and Pakistan, where several Taliban
leaders lived for many years".
The declassified US documents were published on Tuesday by the National Security
Archive at George Washington University. The publication of the documents comes just
days after Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf admitted that the Taliban were
being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions. Assistant US Secretary of State for
South Asia and Central Asia Richard Boucher is currently on a two-day visit to Islamabd.
On Wednesday he met with Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri.
The documents dwell at some length on the unsettling triangle between Harkat ul-Ansar,
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The Harkat ul-Ansar's threat of hijacking an airliner,
based on information generated in August 1996, finds particular mention. "HUA contacts
of Embassy New Delhi have hinted that they might undertake terrorist actions against
civilian airliners," the documents suggest. The CIA describes the Harkat ul-Ansar "as
Islamic extremist organisation that Pakistan supports in its proxy war against Indian
forces in Kashmir." The declassified US Department of State cables and US intelligence
reports go on to describe the use of Taliban terrorist training areas in Afghanistan by
Pakistani-supported militants in Jammu and Kashmir as well as the use of Pakistani
troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan.
According to the documents, the US learnt about Pakistan's intelligence agency's hand in
reaching food supplies from Pakistan to the Taliban in October 1996. The munitions
convoys, in turn, departed Pakistan late in the evening hours and were concealed to
reveal their true contents. In November that year, Pakistan's Pashtun-based Frontier
Corps elements were used alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. The reports cite a
November 7, 1996 Intelligence Information Report about how Pakistan's ISI is heavily
involved in Afghanistan and details the different roles various ISI officers played in
Afghanistan.
In March 1998, it became known that the Al-Qaeda and the "Pakistan Government-
funded" Harkat ul-Ansar have been sharing terrorist training camps in Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan. By September 2000, Pakistan's aid to the Taliban had reached
"unprecedented" levels. Islamabad had possibly allowed the Taliban to use territory in
Pakistan for military operations and was providing the Taliban with material, fuel,
funding, technical assistance and military advisers.
The documents support the findings of a recently-released CIA Intelligence Estimate that
Pakistan's tribal areas were a safe haven for Al-Qaeda terrorists. They detail US concern
over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year-period leading up to
the September 11, 2001 World Trade Centre attacks in New York and also provide new
details about the close relationship between Islamabad and the Taliban in the years
prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan.
CPM rips PM's 123 speech, reminds him not to proceed with N-deal
New Delhi
14 August 2007
An unrelenting CPI(M) on Tuesday reiterated that the UPA
Government should not proceed with operationalising the 123 Agreement. The terse
reminder came within hours of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's breakfast meeting with
CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat.
The CPI(M) Politburo said: "The Prime Minister's statement in Parliament does not shed
any new light on the India-US nuclear agreement that calls for a reassessment on our
part. He has reiterated his position on the agreement and has not addressed the issues
that we have raised."
In a point-by-point rebuttal of the Prime Minister Singh's statement on the proposed
India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, the Politburo listed certain issues of
divergence between the Left and the UPA and also sought to explain the reasons for the
CPI(M)'s opposition to the nuclear deal.
"One of the more important issues raised by the Left right from the beginning," the party
said, "is the link that the agreement has had on India's foreign policy. Here, the issue is
not what the Prime Minister is saying but what his government is doing."
It referred to joint naval exercises and Iran to state: "It is difficult to agree with the Prime
Minister that this agreement has no impact on our independent foreign policy, especially
when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic
value of India aligning with the US as a consequence of the agreement."
The party questioned the Prime Minister for saying that the US cooperation with India will
not be subject to an annual certification process. It said: "A simple reading of
Constitutional practice of the US would clarify that this annual certification is an
obligation of the US President, which he is bound to fulfil. That it does not find a place in
the 123 Agreement is not relevant."
It explained: "The issue that we have raised is if a "good conduct certificate" is not
forthcoming or if the US Congress does not accept the good conduct certificate given (on
issues ranging from Iran to anything that may come up in the future) what would be the
implications for the 123 Agreement. In our understanding, the US could terminate the
agreement with all its consequences for our civilian nuclear energy programme."
The CPI(M) disagreed with the Prime Minister that life term security for nuclear fuel has
been achieved in the 123 Agreement. It said that full access to technology for the fuel
cycle will not be available to India either. "The Prime Minister has essentially confirmed
this; the only concession finally secured is forward-looking language," the Politburo
said. It went on to point out that the right to reprocess is only a notional right at present
and subject to conditions that might emerge in the future.
The CPI(M) also saw no basis for the Prime Minister's "continued optimism" of the NSG
changing its guidelines without conditions and dismantling the restrictions on the
transfer of dual use technologies to India. "This is the same belief he had expressed in
Parliament when he had stated that the US would give full access to civilian nuclear
technology, an expectation, which he has now conceded has been belied," it added.
The leader of the CPI(M) in the Rajya Sabha, Mr Sitaram Yechury, said that all
outstanding issues, including a reappraisal of the CPI(M)'s ties with the UPA, would be
discussed threadbare in the Politburo on August 17 and 18. The meeting is also likely to
decide whether to persist with the UPA-Left coordination committee.
Bush calls up PM, discusses N-deal
New Delhi
14 August 2007
United States President George Bush on Tuesday telephoned Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss, among other things, the status of the proposed
India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The telephone call came after the Prime
Minister invited the Left leaders for a breakfast meeting in the morning.
The Ministry of External Affairs on Tuesday night put out a statement that said the two
leaders reviewed the status of the India-US relations. On the occasion, Mr Bush also
conveyed his greetings on the 60th anniversary of India's Independence.
The statement read: "United States President George W Bush today called the Prime
Minister to convey the greetings of the Government and people of the United States on
the 60th Anniversary of India's Independence. President Bush also conveyed his
Administration's sympathies on the recent floods in India."
"The two leaders also took the opportunity to review the status of Indo-US relations in
several areas, including in the area of civil nuclear energy cooperation. They expressed
their satisfaction at the mutually beneficial and cordial nature of relations currently
existing between the two countries," the statement said.
It added: "While thanking the US President, Prime Minister said that India was well on
the way to fulfilling the dreams and aspirations of its founding fathers, and of its people."
The last time the two leaders spoke was on July 11, ahead of the talks between Indian
and American negotiators in Washington for finalising the text of the 123 Agreement.
PM: No annual US certification needed; says reprocessing right is permanent, IAEA safeguards pact will be taken up soon
New Delhi
13 August 2007
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday told Parliament that the
United States has given "permanent" consent for India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel
and that the US cooperation with India will not be subject to an annual certification
process.
"Our reprocessing rights are upfront and are permanent in nature," he told the Lok
Sabha. (His statement was tabled in the Rajya Sabha.) He added: "US cooperation with
India is a permanent one. There is no provision that states that US cooperation with India
will be subject to an annual certification process."
His statement made no reference to the Hyde Act, which has been cited by the Left
parties to oppose the proposed India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. CPI(M)
General Secretary Prakash Karat has referred Section 104 g (2) E (i) rpt Section 104 g (2)
E (i) of the Hyde Act to suggest that the annual certification and reporting to the US
Congress by the President on a variety of foreign policy issues would be enforced by
successive US Presidents to coerce India to accept the strategic goals of the US.
Again, Article 14 (9) of the 123 Agreement does not reflect fully his assertion that
reprocessing rights are permanent in nature. The Article states that the arrangements
and procedures for reprocessing fuel will be concluded later and they "shall be subject
to suspension by either party".
Prime Minister Singh said that the finalisation of an India-specific safeguards agreement
with the International Atomic Energy Agency "is being taken up shortly", ignoring the
demand made by the opposition BJP-led NDA, the UNPA and the Left parties alike that
the next steps for operationalising the agreement should be put on hold.
"We have negotiated this agreement as an equal partner," he asserted. "There is no
question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy.
We shall retain our strategic autonomy [and] the agreement does not in any way impact
on India's ability to produce and utilise fissile material for its current and future strategic
needs."
He said that the concept of full civil nuclear cooperation has been clearly enshrined in
the 123 Agreement. He, however, hastened to add that the US has a policy of not
supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production
technology but the agreement provides for such transfers to India through an
amendment.
He said: "Forward-looking language has been included for dual use transfers of
enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. We hope transfers will
become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future."
He clarified that the agreement did not affect India's right to conduct nuclear tests, if it
was necessary in the national interest, because a multi-layered consultation process
has been included with regard to "any future events" that may be cited as a reason to
seek cessation of cooperation or termination of the agreement.
Prime Minister Singh said that there was no change in India's position that she would
accept only IAEA safeguards on our civilian nuclear facilities. "This would also be in a
phased manner and as identified for that purpose in the Separation Plan, and only when
all international restrictions on nuclear trade with India have been lifted. India will not
take any irreversible steps with the IAEA prior to this," he emphasised.
He justified the nuclear pact with the US on the ground that even if India were to exploit
all her known resources of coal, oil, gas and hydropower, she would still be confronted
with a yawning demand and supply gap.
"Nuclear energy," he said, "is a logical choice for India. Indigenous supplies of uranium
are highly inadequate and hence we need to source uranium supply from elsewhere."
He went on to suggest that there would be "major spin-offs" for the private and public
sector industries in the area of high technology trade. Another major gain for India, he
pointed out, would be creation of opportunities for Indian scientists to participate in the
international activities.
Don't take US at face value: Analyst
New Delhi
6 August 2007
The history of the United States bilateral relations with other countries
is littered with instances of its going back on its obligations in its national interest and
there is no guarantee that there will not be another "Tarapur", according to a security
analyst.
The director of the Chennai-based Institute of Topical Studies and a former additional
secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, Mr B Raman, said: "Even if our agreement with the
US is satisfactory in every respect from our point of view, it is no guarantee that there
will not be another Tarapur trauma. After our first nuclear test of 1974, the US did not
hesitate to break its solemn contractual obligations and starve the US-aided power
station of fuel to punish us for the test."
He cautioned that the US will observe the provisions of the 123 Agreement so long as it
suits it and it looks upon India as of importance to it in its pursuit of its global designs
and ambitions. If a day comes when the US decides that India is no longer of such
importance to its national interests or when it fears that India's indigenous nuclear
projects are detrimental to its nuclear agenda, it will not hesitate to throw the 123
Agreement into the waste paper basket and try to enforce its will on India.
He called for a careful identification of the scenarios in which the agreement can turn
sour and "we are confronted with another Tarapur-like situation". He suggested a three-
track approach. One, to keep pressing ahead in India's quest for nuclear self-suffiency.
Two, to force open the doors to international nuclear commcece. And three, to keep
ourselves mentally and in other ways prepared to meet a situation in which the doors
might again be close against us before we reach the goal of self-sufficiency. "A
comprehensive exercise to cater to these three tracks is the need of the hour," he said.
He went on to caution that the pursuit of close relatinos with the US should not create
"wrong peceptions" in China.
He felt that more than the agreement itself, the circumstances surrounding the
negotiations which preceded its finalisation and the changing attitude to the US amongst
the present political leaders in power in New Delhi and the small group of officials and
non-official intellectuals advising them should be a matter of concern to public opinion.
He flagged four concerns, including lack of transparency and the noticeable contempt for
those expressing reservations about the present policy of the government towards the
US in general and this agreement in particular. "Third, an uncritical fascination for the US
and a disquirting belief that India's ultimate salvation and its emergence and recognition
as a major power lie in close relations with the US and readiness to be subservient to its
policy goals. Fourth, a greater willingness to be sensitive to the views and concerns of
American legislators and moulders of public opinion than to those in India," he said.
BJP rejects N-deal, demands parliamentary review
New Delhi
4 August 2007
The civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States
may not be a done deal just yet. A combative BJP on Saturday said that the 123
Agreement compromised India's nuclear weapons programme and demanded that the
government put the next steps of the nuclear pact on hold. It sought to remind Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh of the dictum "trust but verify" and suggested that a vital
issue of national concern could not be acceptable until due diligence is conducted by a
joint parliamentary committee.
"The BJP is of the clear view that this agreement is an assault on our nuclear
sovereignty and our foreign policy options. We are, therefore, unable to accept this
agreement as finalised," senior BJP leader and former minister of finance and external
affairs Yashwant Sinha said, reading from the text of the "preliminary comments"
released by the party on Saturday.
The statement read: "We demand that a Joint Parliamentary Committee be set up to
examine the text in detail; that, after it has submitted its report, parliamentary approval
be secured before this deal is signed; and that all further action on it should be
suspended until this sequence is completed."
Mr Sinha, who was joined by former Union minister Arun Shourie for the news conference
at the party headquarters, said that no effort was made by the UPA to evolve a national
consensus on this vital issue of national concern before making commitments to the US.
The BJP has therefore demanded that appropriate amendments be made in the
Constitution and laws to ensure that all agreements which affect the country's
sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security are ratified by Parliament.
The formal response came after the BJP top brass met on Friday evening at former
prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's residence. Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha
LK Advani, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh and Mr Yashwant
Sinha attended that meeting, besides Mr Vajpayee.
Mr Sinha reiterated his party's "serious reservation" that the nuclear pact with the US
would adversely affect India's nuclear weapons programme. He said: "In the separation
plan prepared under the surveillance of the US, two-thirds of our reactors will be put in
the civilian category under safeguards. The recently refurbished CIRUS reactor will be
shut down. In course of time, 90 per cent of our reactors will be in the civilian category.
In the ongoing negotiations in the Committee of Disarmament in Geneva, we have
agreed to work together with the US for the early conclusion of the FMCT (Fissile Material
Cut-off Treaty). We appear to have given up our insistence on international verification
and all countries complying. All these, along with the intrusive provisions of the Hyde Act
are bound to have a stultifying effect on our strategic nuclear programme."
Can't India overcome some of those concerns by setting up more military reactors? a
reporter wanted to know. To which he said that India can set up more military nuclear
facilities if she wants to but the BJP has "serious differences" with the UPA over
adequacy of fissile material, especially after the Manmohan Singh Government's
decision to shut down the CIRUS reactor, which in his estimation produced about half of
the fissile material. He was not particularly happy with Article 10 (6), which suggested
that the "status of all inventories of material subject to this agreement" will be reported
to the US. "Even the uranium mined in India will be accounted for," he feared.
Mr Sinha asserted that the size of India's nuclear deterrent will change from time to time
on the basis of threat perception and that judgment could not be surrendered to anyone
else. Also, the credible minimum deterrent depended on what India's neighbours were
doing. "You give me the threat perception in 2020 and I will give you the number of
bombs needed," a combative Mr Sinha told the reporter who wanted to know how many
bombs would satisfy the BJP. "[The 123 Agreement would suggest that] threat perception
is dependent on the determination by the US President whereas it is the government of
the day, here in India, that must make that determination," he said.
He reminded the UPA that the 123 Agreement is bound by the Hyde Act and there is no
escaping it. "The fact remains that the US retains the right to recall all the supplies that it
has made to India under this agreement. What is worse is that under Article 16 (3)
despite the termination of this agreement, the safeguards in perpetuity will continue to
apply so long as any material or equipment or any of the byproducts thereof remain on
Indian soil," he pointed out. "Are the safeguards coterminus with the agreement? Where
is it defined?" he wondered aloud.
Mr Sinha chided the Manmohan Singh Government for believing that no reference to
testing in the text of the 123 Agreement is a matter of great comfort for India. "Does the
UPA expect the country to adopt an ostrich-like attitude in the face of gathering storm in
our neighbourhood?" he wanted to know. "This view is entirely untenable," he continued
in the same vein. "When national laws apply, which includes the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Hyde Act of
2006 which specifically forbid nuclear tests, where is the question of India having the
freedom to test once we enter into this agreement? In other words, we are being forced to
accept a bilateral CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) with more stringent provisions
than the multilateral CTBT." He said that the government has been "spreading canards"
that the deal recognises India as a de-facto nuclear power. "Nothing," he said, "could be
further from the truth."
Mr Arun Shourie, in turn, said: "The inspections that India would be subject to would be
equivalent to that applicable to the non-nuclear weapons states." He also said that the
commitments of the US on fuel supplies were vague and futuristic. "The agreement is
supposed to lead to full civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries yet Article 2
(2) (d) talks of cooperation relating to aspects of the associated nuclear fuel cycle.
Aspects mean parts and hence all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle are not covered
under this agreement," he said. He sought to dismiss the argument that insofar as
energy security is concerned, nuclear energy is better than oil supplies. "Nuclear
supplies are controlled by an even tighter cartel than the oil supplies," Shourie
countered. He felt that the harnessing of thorium as part of India's three-stage
programme offered real promise of energy security. "That would make the country
completely self-sufficient in nuclear fuel and there will be no need to look for even an
ounce of uranium," he said.
Both Shourie and Sinha added that the American assurances on transfer of sensitive
nuclear technology were prospective in nature and they cautioned that the US will retain
the right of end-use verification of all its supplies. Mr Sinha said: "This will ensure that
American inspectors will roam around our nuclear installations, a fear which was
completely discounted by the Prime Minister while replying to the Rajya Sabha debate
on August 17 last year."
Mr Sinha went on to suggest that the agreement did not refer to the spent fuel from the
Tarapur reactor which has been accumulated over the last 33 years. Asked whether the
BJP would join hands with the Left in opposing the deal, he said: "We have made valid
demands. If the Left and the UNPA back us we have no problems." He took a dig at the
Left parties saying "we would like a partner that would back us the whole hog and not
leave midway". "We had demanded a sense of Parliament on the nuclear deal
but the Left backed out," he elaborated.
Washington imposes sanctions for supplying chemicals to Iran; 'we didn't break any law', Indian companies tell US
New Delhi
29 December 2005
The two Indian companies sanctioned by the United
States Government for supplying chemicals to Iran say the shipments
were as per Indian law and the guidelines under the Chemical Weapons
Convention were complied with.
The vice chairman of Mumbai-based Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited, Mr
Mohit Chuganee, said the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilisers had found no discrepancy in the business
transaction.
Mr Smit repeat Smit Patel of Sandhya Organic Chemical Private Limited,
in turn, said he was surprised to learn about the imposition of the
sanctions despite adhering to all India laws and the relevant international
guidelines.
Mr Patel would not take more questions and chose to conclude his
remarks by stating that the supply of chemicals were not without the
approval of the government agencies concerned. However, Mr Chuganee
was more forthcoming.
"There had been extensive contacts with the Ministry of External Affairs
and the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers before and after the one-
time shipment of 90 tons of trimethyl phosphite two years ago," Mr
Chuganee told this newspaper.
Mr Chuganee, however, acknowledged that the government did suggest
sometime ago that while the shipment was as per rules, politically it
would better if the business transaction was terminated and further
shipment discontinued with.
He said trimethyl phosphite was a dual-use chemical notified under the
Schedule Three of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Some 150
countries are signatories to the Convention including India, Iran and the
United States.
"We were in touch with both the director general of foreign trade (DGFT)
and the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals under the Ministry
of Chemicals and Fertilisers, which is the nodal agency designated under
the Chemical Weapons Convention," he said.
He said the Iranian company called Raja Shimi wanted to buy more
quanities of the chemical but he chose not to process the request. "The
[decision to exercise the] option was ours," he said, who is business for
the past decade.
Washington, meanwhile, maintained that the sanctions were based on
"credible evidence". State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli
said "[the sanctions are] an important and effective tool in constraining
Iran's efforts to develop missile and weapons of mass destruction
capabilities."
Alleged supply of chemicals to Iran: India tells US that sanctions on Indian firms not justified
New Delhi
28 December 2005
Amid the negotiations with the United States on the
civil nuclear deal, India on Wednesday termed as unjustified the reports
about imposition of sanctions by the Bush administration on two Indian
companies for allegedly selling chemical materials to Iran.
The spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Mr Navtej Sarna, told
reporters that it was New Delhi's view that the two companies named had
not acted in violation of Indian laws or regulations.
A US media report on Tuesday said that the two Indian chemical
companies -- Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited and Sandhya Organics
Limited -- along with Chinese and Austrian firms will soon be sanctioned
by US President George Bush's administration under the US Iran
Proliferation Act, 2000, for allegedly selling missile goods and chemical
arms materials to Iran.
The spokesman said that the "imposition of sanctions by the US on our
firms, which in our view have not acted in violation of our laws or
regulations, is not jusified." "The Government," he said, "also reiterates
that sactions against Dr YSR Prasad should be removed."
He said the sanctions related to the transfer of some chemicals to Iran.
"Our preliminary assessment is that the transfer of such chemicals is not
in violation of our regulations or our international obligations," he said.
The spokesman observed that the government's commitment to prevent
onward proliferation was second to none and that it has instituted a
rigorous system of export controls. "Our track record in this regard is well
known. India is working with international community including with the
US as a partner against proliferation," he said.
The spokesman said the government has also seen the reports about the
removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar by the US Government. "The
removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar vindicates Government's position
on this matter. Since the imposition of sanctions in September 2004,
Government has maintained that this had no justification. Accordingly, we
had urged the US Government to review the issue and withdraw the
sanctions," he said.
Russia ticks off US on Iran; cautions Washington against provoking Tehran
Moscow
26 December 2005
As the European Union's nuclear negotiations
with Iran remain delicately poised, a top Russian official has cautioned
the United States against precipitating an avoidable crisis and urged
Washington to refrain from making provocative statements.
"If the US [continues its] provocation against Iran, there is no prediction
which way [Iran] will go," a top Russian official told this newspaper. On
Russia's position, he said, "We have told Iran not to go beyond the limits
of energy purposes and the supply of nuclear fuel".
The remarks flow from concerns about the likelihood of a situation
developing in Russia's proximity that was "not in favour of Moscow".
There is also a perception that if Iran goes nuclear, it will pose a "real
threat" to Russia more than the US.
Concerns have also been expressed by certain quarters about a
breakdown in the talks and a showdown early next year when the board of
governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) holds a
regular meeting in Vienna.
The EU and the US are backing the Russian proposal that would allow
Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory. Doing so would prevent
Tehran from diverting enriched uranium towards its nuclear weapons
programme.
Tehran on Sunday rejected Moscow's offer to process uranium for Iran on
Russian soil. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia had on Saturday
said that its proposal to facilitate "on Russian soil a joint Russo-Iranian
undertaking to enrich uranium still stands".
Iran, which resumed discussions with the EU negotiators -- Britain, France
and Germany -- last week, insisted on its right to produce enriched
uranium while maintaining that it was keen only on meeting its energy
requirements. The next round of talks are expected on January 18.
Russia and China abstained from voting in the September 24 meeting of
the IAEA. Their decision blocked the moves to refer Iran to the United
Nations Security Council. Both Russia and China also have veto powers
as permanent members of the Security Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)