PM skips foreign policy issues

New Delhi

15 August 2007

Two years ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, fresh from signing

the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement with the United States, held forth extensively on

India's foreign policy in his Independence Day address to the nation. He showcased

India's relations with the US, Russia and China, he spoke about the composite dialogue

with Pakistan, and he did not forget to mention the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Two years later, speaking from the ramparts of the Red Fort, he dismissed the foreign

policy of his government in a few lines. Gone were the long paragraphs outlining the

government's vision. Also gone were the specifics.

Prime Minister Singh merely said: "India wants to have good relations with all the

countries of the world. Big and small. Countries of the East and the West, the North and

the South. Today, we enjoy good relations with all major powers and all developing

countries. We have emerged as a bridge between the many extremes of the world. Our

composite culture is living proof of the possibility of a confluence of civilisations."

He added: "India will always be a nation bridging the many global divides. India wants to

live in a neighbourhood of peace and prosperity. I assure all our neighbours that we in

India want peace and the best of relations with all of them. I sincerely believe that in the

prosperity and well-being of our neighbours lies the key to our own security and

progress."

Wednesday morning's speech was unlike any he has delivered since becoming Prime

Minister on May 22, 2004.

His Independence Day address last year was delivered in the aftermath of the July 7

train bombings in Mumbai. Predictably, he dwelled at some length on national security

and terrorism. He said that Pakistan must take concrete steps to prevent cross-border

terrorism. He focussed on other issues too, like India's relations with the US, China,

Japan, the European Union and Russia. South-East Asia, the Gulf and the Arab world,

and the continents of Africa and Latin America, came in for particular mention.

His 2005 speech was even more elaborate. He said: "My visit to the United States has

been a major step in promoting friendship with that country. By deepening our economic

and technological relations, we will be accelerating our own growth. Simultaneously, our

two democracies can work together to strengthen democracy in the world."

He added: "In my visit to the United States, we have managed to reduce some of the

constraints which have been hampering the growth of our nuclear energy programme

and in the next 10 years, in addition to the 1,50,000 MW of capacity being added in the

thermal and hydro sectors, another 40,000 MW could be generated through nuclear

energy."

The 2004 speech, which was his first as prime minister, had spelt out his foreign policy

priorities. He favoured a "purposive" bilateral dialogue with Pakistan to resolve all

outstanding issues. The only other country to find a mention in his speech was China.

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.

East Siberia oil fields: Russia asks India, China to overcome rivalry, bid together

Moscow

28 December 2005

Welcoming the recognition in India and China that they

might have more to gain from cooperation than competition in the energy

field, Russia has suggested that they bid together for the oil and gas

fields in East Siberia.

"India can play a big role as there will be vast possibilities in the next two

to three years," Mr Igor V Scheulov, deputy director of foreign economic

relations division of the Russian ministry of industry and energy told this

newspaper.

After West Siberia, which has been contracted to the West, it will be the

turn of East Siberia to be up for grabs in 2006-07. Mr Scheulov said bids

will be invited from interested parties for 40 big and small oil fields.

"A new law on subsoil is past the first reading in Parliament. It will be

passed in two to three months," he said about a legislation that will allow

foreign companies to participate in the exploration and development of oil

and gas projects.

Incidentally, China and India have chosen Syria's dwindling oil market as

a testing ground for cooperation. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission

(ONGC) and the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) are planning to bid

for Petro-Canada's 38 per cent stake in the Al Furat oil and gas venture in

Syria.

Accoding to Stratfor, a United States-based think tank, "New Delhi's quest

for energy security is compounded by its intense energy rivalry with

Beijing. A latecomer to the energy battle, India consistently has lost to

China in bidding wars over oil and gas fields. China simply has more

cash, expertise and control over state firms to secure resources in the

race for energy supplies."

India's latest defeat came on August 22 when ONGC's 3.6 billion-dollar

offer for PetroKazakhstan's reserves in Central Asia was overshadowed

by CNPC's 4.2 billion-dollar bid.

If ONGC had gone ahead with its proposal to acquire a 45 per cent state in

a Nigerian oil and gas field, for the first time an Indian firm would have

defeated the Chinese in securing a field with an estimated capacity of 1.6

billion barrels of oil reserves.

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.