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.

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.