Political India: Engaging America

Labels: Israeli settlement activity, United Nations Security Council, UNSC, West Bank

From The Hindu

In a media blitz that closely followed the announcement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against Iran for its alleged nuclear programme, President Barack Obama and his administration sought to dispel any notion that they were using a “double standard” in not giving the diplomatic channels for resolving the dispute a fair chance.

In a statement Mr. Obama said, “There is no double standard at play here. We have made it clear, time and again, that we respect Iran’s right, like all countries, to access peaceful nuclear energy. That is a right embedded in the Non Proliferation Treaty.”

He also praised the UNSC for imposing “the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government”, noting that they sent an “unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons”.

Commenting that these were also “the most comprehensive sanctions that the Iranian government has faced,” Mr. Obama noted that they would impose restrictions not only on Iran’s nuclear activities and its ballistic missile program but also on its conventional military, on Iranian banks and financial transactions, individuals, entities, and institutions associated with the Revolutionary Guard.

Arguing that sanctions had not been inevitable, Mr. Obama emphasised his government’s two-track approach: “We made clear from the beginning of my administration that the U.S. was prepared to pursue diplomatic solutions to address the concerns over Iranian nuclear programmes… Together with the United Kingdom, with Russia, China, and Germany… we offered the Iranian government the prospect of a better future for its people, if and only if it lives up to its international obligations.”

Dual-track strategy

In highlighting the dual-track strategy in negotiations, Mr. Obama sought to pre-empt the charge that the sanctions, given their timing, potentially undermined the recent move by Iran to extend its cooperation through the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil. Last month, Iran announced that it would be willing to move low-enriched uranium off its soil in return for 20 per cent enriched uranium that could be used in the Tehran Research Reactor for medical isotopes.

Although the White House initially greeted the fuel-swap deal as a “positive step”, it subsequently criticised the proposal for not addressing the question of uranium enrichment that Iran said it would continue. Further, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had noted at the time, Iran had not agreed, as it did in October, to hold detailed discussions with the P-5+1 group of nuclear powers nor agreed to provide unfettered access to its nuclear facilities in areas such as Qom.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the same emphasis on the dual-track approach, arguing that the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1929 on Iran went “well beyond the pre-existing sanctions on Iran. That said, we have worked hard to minimise their impact on the Iranian people”. She further noted that the adoption of Resolution 1929 kept the door open for continued engagement between the P5+1 and Iran and the U.S. “is committed to a diplomatic solution to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program”.

Susan Rice, U.S. representative to the UN, commented on why the P5+1 group had chosen to disregard any positive implications of the fuel-swap deal. She said, “Turkey and Brazil have worked hard to make progress on the Tehran Research Reactor proposal — efforts that reflect their leaders’ good intentions to address the Iranian people’s humanitarian needs while building more international confidence about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” Neither Turkey nor Brazil voted in favour of imposing the sanctions on Iran.

However, she noted, “The Tehran Research Reactor proposal — then and now — does not respond to the fundamental, well-founded, and unanswered concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. This resolution does,” she said, adding that the U.S. would continue to discuss the Iranian-revised proposal and their concerns about it, “as appropriate”.

Not directed at Iranian people

Another key thrust of the messages that the administration has put out to the media since the announcement of sanctions has been the emphasis that the sanctions would not negatively impact the people of Iran but would only target specific parts of the Iranian state that were involved in supporting the country’s alleged nuclear programme in one way or another. For example, President Obama and Ms. Rice said, “These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people.”

However, responding to questions from media, Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns cast such assertions in doubt as he said, “I’ll be honest with you, there is no perfect assurance that you can give with regard to a sanctions regime or a new sanctions resolution and its impact on a country and a society.” He went on to state, “We have tried… to minimise the impact on the Iranian people and maximise the impact on that calculation of the Iranian leadership. Is that a perfect solution? No, I would not pretend that.”

Additionally, Mr. Burns defended the sanctions’ targeting of the Iranian Central Bank, saying, “Focus, not only on the Central Bank but on the Iranian banking system and ways in which the international financial system can be manipulated, is an important new development and a significant step forward in this resolution.”

Labels: Iran nuclear programme, Iran sanctions, U.S.-Iran relations, UNSC

From The Hindu

At the start of the United States-India Strategic Dialogue on Thursday, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a request to provide Indian authorities with access to David Coleman Headley, accused in the Mumbai attacks and currently in the custody of the United States. He also pushed for relaxation of export control restrictions by the U.S. on high-tech goods sought by India.

In a clear indication of India's frustration with the lack of progress in the Headley case over two months after Headley struck a bargain with the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Krishna said, "access for our authorities to persons who have been apprehended by your Government in connection with [the] Mumbai terror attack is the logical next step."

Mr. Krishna added, "We are confident that our continued cooperation will lead to [the] realisation of this objective." He however noted that India valued the support it had received from the U.S. government in its investigations.

He also touched upon another area where India is awaiting a favourable U.S. policy response -- export control restrictions on high-tech goods, particularly dual-use items.

In this regard Mr. Krishna said in his opening remarks, "Given the strategic nature of our partnership and particularly the conclusion of the Civil Nuclear Initiative, these controls are not only anomalous but also a hindrance to furthering trade and investment in this particularly significant sector of our economies."

He added that India looked forward to "early steps in this direction".

On dispelling doubts

In her statements, Secretary Clinton sought to dispel 'doubts that remain on both sides'. Ms. Clinton said there were still "doubts among some Indians that the U.S. only, or mainly, sees India in the context of Afghanistan or Pakistan, or that we will hasten our departure from Afghanistan leaving India to deal with the aftermath".

She noted that equally, there were also "doubts in America that India has not fully embraced its role in regional or global affairs or will not make the economic reform needed to foster additional progress".

However, she argued that with this Dialogue and the level of confidence that India and the U.S. have established between themselves, they would "confront these challenges directly and candidly".

Click here for video of joint press conference by Hillary Clinton and S.M. Krishna. Source: U.S. State Department.

Labels: David Coleman Headley, high-technology exports, Hillary Clinton, India-U.S. ties, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, S.M. Krishna, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

“The Government [of India] is committed to put in place a nuclear liability regime… [and] we look forward to U.S. companies investing in India,” said External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna.

Speaking before the start of the United States-India Strategic Dialogue at an event hosted by the U.S.-India Business Council, Mr. Krishna said many companies in the U.S. were in dialogue with Indian companies already, adding, "We would like it to be as robust a partnership as we have both envisioned."

Highlighting some of the key areas of discussion over the coming days, Mr. Krishna said, they would include a wide range of subjects, "from countering terrorism and extremism, advancing nuclear security, working to secure the global commons, seeking to build a developed and cooperative Asia, and succeeding in Afghanistan to dialogues for co-operation in science and technology, research for clean energy and monsoon prediction, health and education, and a dialogue on women’s empowerment".

Mr. Krishna noted that the Dialogue would also be an important occasion for India and the U.S. to reflect on the remarkable journey that the two democracies had embarked upon, and to set their sights on new milestones.

High-technology exports

He also touched upon the question of restrictions on high-technology exports to India from the U.S., an issue that industry associations such as the High Technology Cooperation Group have been emphasising over the last few months.

Making a strong pitch for fewer restrictions Mr. Krishna said, “Indian importers have a 100 per cent compliance record when it comes to safeguarding imported technology — we have been implementing the End-Use Verification Agreement with U.S. partners for years now — and have, last year, agreed to a Technical Safeguards Agreement in space co-operation.”

He noted that India also had the End Use Monitoring arrangement for defence acquisitions and had “given a number of written assurances that U.S. technology will enjoy the level of security stipulated by the relevant U.S. laws and not be diverted in contravention of U.S. regulations.”

He said given these assurances and the trust fostered through strategic dialogue, the two countries “should be able to create an environment for a robust two way trade in advanced technology products.”

Mr. Krishna will meet with his counterpart, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other U.S. officials on Thursday as part of the formal Strategic Dialogue discussions. President Barack Obama will also meet with the Indian delegation at the State Department during what is expected to be a star-studded reception for attending dignitaries and select media.

Labels: high-technology exports, Hillary Clinton, India-U.S. ties, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, S.M. Krishna, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

“India’s expanding global role will naturally make it an important part of any future consideration of reform of the United Nations Security Council,” said William Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

Speaking at a seminar prior to the start of this week’s United States-India Strategic Dialogue, Mr. Burns noted that reform of the UNSC, similar to other structures of the international architecture, was an issue that needed to be addressed so that it reflected the realities of 2010 rather than 1945.

He argued that in this context, the U.S. recognised India’s “increasing global role” and was “open to expansion of permanent membership of the Council”.

However Mr. Burns said that reform of the UNSC would have to be undertaken “in a way which is going to preserve the effectiveness of the Security Council”.

Further, in response to questions, Mr. Burns emphasised that “for countries like India… we need very much to consider how their increasing role in global affairs is matched by the responsibilities that they can discharge in the most important parts of the international architecture”.

He also noted that “the U.S. strongly supported the recent expansion in India’s World Bank voting share”, which occurred during the World Bank-IMF Spring Meetings held earlier this year.

Labels: Strategic Dialogue, United Nations Security Council, UNSC, William Burns

From The Hindu

There is no escaping a strong sense of déjà vu surrounding the upcoming United States-India Strategic Dialogue to be held here this week. Both countries are poised, yet again, to do what they have done ever since President Obama took office, namely, skip through policy minefields while professing unwavering cooperation on a range of less exigent issues.

Much like the previous meetings, this one will not be about Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to deliver justice through the prosecution of the masterminds of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Speaking before the talks Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs, said that regarding Punjab-based terror groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, “Pakistan has [acted against them] in the past between 2004 and 2007, and that laid the basis for a very significant expansion in relations between India and Pakistan.” Then why exactly did the Mumbai attacks occur? This “softly, softly” approach towards Pakistan may be wearing dangerously thin.

Neither will this meeting recognise a fundamental dissonance within President Obama’s nuclear security and non-proliferation agenda — that powers such as the U.S. and Russia continue to maintain significant and less-than-secure arsenals even as they turn up the heat on de facto nuclear powers like India.

Questions to be raised

Would India dare remind the U.S. that it was on American soil that six nuclear warheads fixed to cruise missiles were mistakenly carried on a B-52 bomber in 2007, violating numerous Cold-War-era treaties? Would India even contemplate asking the U.S. to bring Israel’s nuclear programme into the spotlight as it has done Iran’s?

Much like the previous dialogue, this one will certainly not be about understanding India’s views on third parties like Iran, regardless of India’s strategic closeness to that country.

Given its absence at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), India will have no say in the decision by the P5+1 group to mete out rough justice to Iran through UNSC sanctions, which completely undermine Iran’s promise to move low-enriched uranium off its soil under the fuel-swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil.

Global, bilateral issues on agenda

Instead, global and bilateral issues have been placed on the agenda which, though worthy of holding the relationship to a positive pitch, make a proverbial 200-pound gorilla of the other burning questions.

The most telling sign that the U.S.-India engagement is set to simmer but will never get fully cooked was a statement by Mr. Blake to a question on what the deliverables of the Strategic Dialogue would be. He said, “I do not want to talk about the deliverables now. But we are really not focused that much on deliverables.”

Labels: India-U.S. ties, Lashkar-e-Taiba, non-proliferation agenda, nuclear security, Robert Blake, Strategic Dialogue, UNSC

From The Hindu

Iran is “not yet... nuclear capable,” admitted Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence, in a media interview released on Monday. Speaking during a pre-recorded interview on the NBC program “Meet the Press,” Mr. Gates said that Iran’s present position was as dangerous as it being a nuclear state given the ambiguities of differentiating between the degree to which nuclear weapons development was achieved in that country.

Alluding that it may not be clear exactly how far Iran has gone with its alleged nuclear weapons programme, he said, “If their policy is to go to the threshold but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled? So it becomes a serious verification question, and I do not actually know how you would verify that,” he argued.

During the interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton however avoided a direct question on whether Iran was nuclear capable or not. In response she said, “That's an issue upon which intelligence services still differ. But our goal is to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.”

NPR strengthens Iran deterrent

Mr. Gates further argued that the power of the U.S. nuclear capability implied by the Nuclear Posture Review would continue to serve as the policy tool and source of deterrence against Iran, rather than nuclear disarmament under the new START deal between the U.S. and Russia.

He said the NPR would put the U.S. in a much stronger position in terms of going to other countries and getting their support for putting pressure on the Iranians and the North Koreans. “I think it also has, potentially, a deterrent effect on other countries who might be potential proliferators as they look at North Korea and, and Iran,” he added.

Emphasising that the U.S. hoped to influence the calculus of Iran’s incentives for nuclear weaponisation, Mr. Gates stated that the U.S. hoped that the Iranian government would decide that “its own security is better served by not having nuclear weapons than by having them,” a position that could be achieved via a combination of economic pressure and “more missile defence and cooperation in the Gulf to show them that… we can defend against [any attack].”

Pushing for Security Council resolution

From the comments of Mr. Gates and Ms. Clinton it would appear that the Obama administration is convinced that a key goal for the U.S. is to halt any progress in Iran’s nuclear weapons development plans. Mr. Gates argued that the U.S. would probably… get another UN Security Council resolution passed. This would also serve as a legal platform for organizations like the European Union and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran.

Ms. Clinton explicitly favoured the turning the tide of diplomatic pressure against Iran through the UN Security Council. She said, a Security Council resolution would send a “really powerful message”, and Iran has been “beating down the doors of every country in the world “ to try to avoid a Security Council resolution.

However, she said, due to the U.S.’s strategic patience and willingness to keep on this issue, other countries were realising that Iran had failed to cooperate and were in fact responsible for shutting the door.

Labels: EU, Iran nuclear issue, sanctions, United States, UNSC