Dr. A. Prabaharan’s

The Indian diplomacy is making faux paus after faux pas in its policies. After the confusion in Sharm-e-Sheikh in Egypt over the dealing with Pakistan regarding terrorism they have done another blunder. This time regarding the End User Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) with America regarding the operation of US provided nuclear technologies. This can be brushed aside like other things if luck continues to be with India. Otherwise it has to pay heavy price when the American started bullying it with this pact. Let us wish a good luck in this regard.

The Times of India writes (2 July 2009)

Even as the UPA government was reeling under the charge of compromising national interests by initialling the Indo-Pak joint statement in
Egypt, more grief came its way on Tuesday. The charge this time was that it has “mortgaged Indian sovereignty to the US” by signing an End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) which would allow American inspectors to verify the end use of US sourced high tech equipment of dual use.

The issue erupted in Parliament with the opposition claiming that this was the thin end of the wedge ^ after “giving in” to the US, India would now be required to make its sensitive military equipment available for inspection to not just the Americans, but all foreign suppliers. The government insisted that this was far from the truth and the EUMA allowed nothing of the sort, but a disatisfied Opposition walked out of the two Houses.

Foreign minister S M Krishna said, “Nobody should have anxiety about national interests being surrendered.” He said the agreement only “systemises ad-hoc arrangements for individual defence procurements from the US entered into by previous governments.”

The EUMA is designed to facilitate high-end dual use technology transfer to India. Under US laws no country can get access to high technology of dual use with an EUMA agreement. Since 1984, Indian companies had had to sign stand-alone end-use monitoring pacts to source American high tech. Now the EUMA, signed in the presence of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s presence on Monday, has become an umbrella agreement that covers the trade of all cutting-edge technology from the US for a whole range of applications.

This EUMA is seen by the government seen as a good bargain because while it allows the US to carry out inspections, it gives India the prerogative to decide on the time and venue of the scrutiny. This way, it feels that it won’t disclose the exact locational and strategic use of military equipment to American inspectors.
The Opposition, however, refused to see it in this light, arguing that the agreement would cover even technologies obtained from other sources. The tone for the skirmish was set right in the morning, within hours of the agreement being signed with Clinton. As Lok Sabha met, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha stood up to accuse the government of buckling under US pressure.

Sinha said the pact would allow US inspection even for supplies from third countries if they had used American technology. He further said that inspectors would visit sensitive installations to inspect “immoveables” which could not be put at a safe site for scrutiny.

Sharad Yadav of JD(U) added the frisking of former President A P J Abdul Kalam by a US airline was a sign of American abrasiveness. “Remember when Clinton came to India, sniffer dogs were sent to Rajghat,” he said. Arun Jaitley said in Rajya Sabha, “Today we have friendly relations (with US) but we cannot forget a situation where the 7th Fleet had entered the Indian Ocean.” He added that US also has “very friendly relationship” with Pakistan.

SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav reminded Congress that Nehru had refused to accept foreign interference. “You have forgotten not only Gandhi but even Nehru,” he said. CPI’s Gurudas Dasgupta called it a “Himalayan blunder”. The rhetoric climaxed when RJD chief Lalu Prasad said, “UN inspectors did not find any weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons but Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was hung. This was a message to the world that those who fail to toe the US line will meet the same fate.”

Krishna responded to all this with a bland statement that gave a factual account of the pacts signed with Hillary Clinton. Saying that Clinton’s visit would help “broaden and deepn bilateral relationship”, the minister said, “We have also agreed to a new bilateral dialogue architecture within which we will continue discussions between our two countries on a wide range of issues.”

As the Opposition walked out, Krishna said, “I am surprised by the interpretation sought to be given to the bilateral pact between two sovereign countries.” He said the end-use monitoring of high-end defence purchases always existed and the fresh pact only generalised them. “We do it for other countries also. It is all straight and it is in the larger interest of the country.”

Keeping up his promise, Barack Obama had reached out to Russia. The happily concluded meeting between the heads of USA and Russia is to be taken seriously then there is a possibility of good times ahead. Especially in the nuclear disarmament front things will move in the right direction.

G. Parathasarthy writes in The Times of India (17 July 2009)

Given his desire to “reset” relations with Russia, US president Barack Obama’s visit to Moscow on July 6-7 was intended to show improvement in anotherwise strained relationship, marked by deep Russian suspicions about American moves to expand the NATO alliance, by co-opting Russia’s neighbours like Ukraine and Georgia. Such moves were perceived as attempts to strategically ‘contain’ Russia. While suspicions remain, the visit was marked by a landmark agreement signalling Russian support to the US in Afghanistan. Russia agreed to permit 4,500 flights annually across Russian airspace by US military aircraft carrying military supplies to Afghanistan. The Americans have also heralded the understanding reached on a framework for a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev agreed they would reduce their strategic nuclear warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 warheads each to between 1,500 and 1,675 and that they would reduce the current ceiling of 1,600 long-range strategic missiles, to between 500 and 1,100, over the next seven years. While this has been described as a great step towards nuclear disarmament, the reality is somewhat different. Even at reduced levels, the two countries will retain enough weaponry to destroy each other and the rest of the world several times over. Between them, they today possess an estimated 22,400 nuclear warheads.

The real reason for all the hype and hoopla about START lies in the fact that the forthcoming review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is due next year. The Obama administration cannot allow this review to end in a fiasco as in 2005, when non-nuclear weapons states assailed the US and other powers for failing to fulfil their obligations to disarm and grant unhindered access to nuclear energy to those who have foregone the nuclear option. The 2005 fiasco was followed by growing international concern over Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The US would showcase START with Russia as symbolising its commitment to nuclear disarmament.

More ominously for India, it appears that the US may be seeking to divert attention from the lack of serious commitment to nuclear disarmament by focusing on the need to “universalise” NPT membership, by endorsing the suggestion that the real threat of proliferation arises from countries like India which have not signed the NPT and that they should be pressured into doing so. Islamic countries, particularly in the Arab world, are expected to support this argument as a means to pressure Israel
into foregoing its nuclear weapons. The US move in the G8 to deny enrichment and reprocessing facilities to India as a non-signatory to NPT has to be seen in this context.

Obama is reportedly planning to take his nuclear agenda forward by hosting a summit of around 30 countries in 2010. How should India respond? While India has not done anything to undermine NPT’s efficacy, it would have to take the moral high ground by noting that on issues of nuclear disarmament the World Court’s views should not be ignored, but implemented. The World Court was asked its opinion on a query: “Is the threat of use of nuclear weapons permitted under International Law?” On July 8, 1996, the court held that states possessing nuclear weapons have not just a need but an obligation to commence negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. It also held that the use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the principles of international law, though there was some doubt about the extreme contingency when “the very survival of a state” was threatened.

Despite the World Court’s view, the US, in its 2005 Doctrine of Joint Operations, reserves the right to use nuclear weapons even to “rapidly end a war” on terms favourable to it. The UK and France have reserved the right to resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Russia has discarded the Soviet policy of no first use. India should work with non-nuclear weapons states to move a resolution in the UN General Assembly later this year declaring the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as inadmissible and calling on all states to foreswear threat of use of nuclear weapons. The guiding principles of an equitable global nuclear regime are reflected in the opinion of the World Court, more than in the NPT.

Non-proliferation and climate change will figure in the agenda for talks with US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, an influential advocate of strengthening India-US relations, during her India visit. Reprocessing of spent fuel is imperative if we are to proceed with our indigenous, three-stage, thorium-based nuclear energy programme. Denial of reprocessing facilities will slow down our nuclear power programme, inhibit India-US cooperation on nuclear power and not exactly serve the cause of replacing polluting hydrocarbons with clean nuclear energy. Sadly, it would also undermine the letter and spirit of the October 2008 123 Agreement and the “clean waiver” that the Nuclear Suppliers Group accorded to India.

Latin America nations are known for flash coups. It is high time that the world pays attention to the ill developed region and rescue from political chaos and social anarchy.

Jorge Heine writes in The Hindu (1 July 2009)

The ouster by the military of President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, taken unceremoniously from his official residence in Tegucigalpa, and flown, still in his pajamas, to San José, Costa Rica, is a novel challenge. Leaving military coups behind is one of Latin America’s great accomplishments. Democracy, albeit with imperfections, is the norm, with the single exception of Cuba, and the times when the region was chiefly known for “coups and earthquakes” seemed to be over.

This does not mean that civilian, elected governments have had some sort of blank cheque guarantee to last. In this decade alone, several Presidents were forced to leave before their time was up. They were unable to deal with economic and social crises, mass demonstrations and widespread popular opposition to their rule. Although these “falls from grace” of Presidents like Fernando de la Rúa in Argentina, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada in Bolivia and Gustavo Novoa in Ecuador, among others, were sometimes described as “soft coups,” that was not really the best term. Sometimes, governments just fall apart, and although in parliamentary systems there are ways and means of dealing with such crises, in the more rigid presidential systems in Latin America, there is no such flexibility, and some messiness ensued.

But it is one thing for a government to fall apart; it is quite another to have the generals give it a push, by bursting into the President’s bedroom at 5 o’clock on a Sunday morning, manhandle him at gunpoint, put him on a plane and send him off to a neighbouring country. Once that is condoned, anything goes, and that way lies the road back to the heyday of the Pinochets, Somozas and Stroessners of our world.

In marked contrast to what happened in 2002 in the coup against President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, the international community, including Washington, has been unanimous in condemning the coup. Aware of treading dangerous ground, the Honduran military immediately worked with Congress to have a new President take office. This is Roberto Micheletti, the president of Honduras’ unicameral Parliament, sworn in after the Congress approved President Zelaya’s resignation in a letter the latter denies having written (so much for parliamentary procedures).

Far from being a “soft coup,” this was pretty harsh. Eight Cabinet members were arrested, as was the mayor of the country’s second largest city, San Pedro Sula. In a bizarre act, the ambassadors of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela were apparently arrested and roughed up. In the best tradition of such events, a curfew was declared on Sunday night and the military is throwing its weight around, particularly against Mr. Zelaya’s supporters.

Honduras did find itself in the midst of a political crisis. This had been triggered by Mr. Zelaya’s efforts to call for a referendum, to be held last Sunday, that would have opened the possibility of a change to the Constitution in next November’s elections (when Mr. Zelaya’s four-year term was up), allowing the President to be re-elected. Given the refusal of Army General Romeo Vásquez to help run the referendum, Mr. Zelaya sacked him, something opposed by the Supreme Court which proceeded to reinstate the general. The Supreme Court also stated that any such referendum would be unconstitutional.

In short, according to one perspective, this has been largely a mess created by Mr. Zelaya’s own power-grabbing attempts. By trying to secure a second term in office, he ended up creating the conditions for his own ouster, something for which he would have no one to blame but himself.

Another explanation has been more political. Although a rancher and businessman from a conservative background, who favours a bushy moustache, cowboy hats and boots, elected on the ticket of the right-wing Liberal party, President Zelaya had a change of heart of sorts. He had the audacity to visit Cuba, to strengthen ties with Venezuela, and to actually have Honduras join ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, led by Mr. Chávez, and also formed by Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. This is one reason President Chávez has been in the forefront of those who have denounced the coup, and has even intimated, perhaps not altogether prudently, that he might send his own troops to take care of the situation and put Mr. Zelaya back in office.

There is an element of comic opera in all this, and we should not forget that Honduras was the country that originally gave rise to the very term “banana republic.” Until a few years ago, its capital, Tegucigalpa, had neither a traffic light in all of its city grid, nor a building high enough to warrant an elevator. But the stakes are high, the game is dead serious and I am afraid the Honduran military and its supporters may have bitten off a piece bigger than they will be able to chew on, let alone swallow.

President Zelaya did not handle his somewhat clumsy attempt at securing his re-election very adroitly, to put it mildly. But that is neither here nor there. The country was heading directly into a political crisis, but there are constitutional mechanisms to deal with it. Some solution should have been found through a compromise between the government and the opposition, or, if push came to shove, through some mediation efforts. The notion that whenever there is a major disagreement between the Executive and the Legislature, the way forward is calling in the Army is something that was tried in the past in Latin America (and elsewhere) and found wanting.

Having said this, the challenge to the international community, and particularly the hemispheric one, is not a minor one. Over the past two decades, starting at the Organisation of American States (OAS) Assembly in Santiago de Chile in 1991, and culminating in the one held in Lima, Peru, on September 11, 2001, when the Inter-American Democratic Charter was unanimously approved, the Americas have put the strengthening of democratic institutions among their foremost concerns. Many of the countries in the region have “low-intensity” democracies, but democracies nonetheless. A “democratic clause” in many regional integration treaties means that those who stray from the democratic path are excluded and penalised.

A variety of international political cooperation mechanisms, like the Rio Group, the South American Community of Nations (UNASUR), and the Ibero-american Summits have also embraced this democratic clause, while democracy promotion and electoral assistance has been one of the defining features of a revitalised OAS. Coup attempts in Paraguay and elsewhere have thus been foiled.

Will they be able to “roll back” a coup that already took place?

President Lula of Brazil, perhaps the leader with most credibility south of the Rio Grande, has said Brazil will not recognise any Honduran President except Manuel Zelaya. President Bachelet of Chile, the pro tempore chair of UNASUR, has been canvassing its members, which are taking the same line as Brazil. The OAS has unanimously condemned the coup. Miguel D’Escoto, president of the United Nations General Assembly, has already announced that he will invite President Zelaya to address the UNGA in New York.

President Barack Obama has also condemned the coup, and the State Department has indicated that it worked for several days to stave it off, albeit unsuccessfully. The U.S. has troops in Honduras, to train the Honduran Armed Forces and to work on counter-narcotics and disaster relief in Central America, and thus has some leverage. Honduras is also part of the CAFTA-DR agreement with the U.S. If the benefits from this trade agreement are denied to Honduras, its products will have a hard time competing in the U.S. market.

Honduras is part of the Central American Common Market. If it is excluded from it, it will be costly.

In many ways, this is the second key test of Mr. Obama’s new policy towards Latin America. Ironically, the first also took place in Honduras, in early June, at the OAS General Assembly meeting that unanimously lifted the 1962 resolution that suspended Cuba’s membership in the organisation. President Obama has indicated his commitment to working with the countries of the region, through multilateral institutions, to further economic progress and democratic development. If Mr. Zelaya finds himself back in office (however briefly — his term has only seven months to go), as a result of concerted international pressure, it would show a new measure of hemispheric cooperation.

The so-called “facts on the ground” have their own dynamic, and reversing such military takeovers are never easy, though by no means impossible. This is what happened in Venezuela in 2002, when President Chávez, three days after being ousted, found himself back in office.

Honduras poses a true litmus test of the commitment of the hemispheric community to democratic stability and continuity. If the Inter-American Democratic Charter is not held up now, and the semi-farcical, Keystone Cops Honduran coup is not reversed, it means that much of the political progress we have seen in the region since 1990 can far too easily be undone.