Nuclear
Cement For US Imperialism's "Strategic Partnership" With India:
A Case Of A Carrot And A Rod
By Hari P. Sharma
15 July, 2006
Countercurrents.org
What follows is an expanded,
rather elaborated, version of the keynote address given at the World
Peace Forum in Vancouver, on June 25, 2006.
In
this plenary with a focal theme of achieving "nuclear-free Asia",
I am afraid I do not have good news to share with you. On the contrary,
the special nuclear deal between the USA and India, currently in the
making, will only further escalate the proliferation of nuclear arms
in the region, besides creating new geo-political tensions on the global
scale.
Let me highlight, in point
form and as briefly as possible, what has been happening; and also,
hopefully, why.
Desperate and in
hurry
1. The Bush Administration
has been trying desperately to get the controversial legislation dealing
with nuclear cooperation with India through Congress; in hurry, and
without any substantial amendments. It is in hurry, because if not approved
by the Congress before the summer recess in August, it might die. And
it wants it without substantial amendments, in order to avoid re-negotiations
with India.
2. After months of uncertainty
and what seemed like an endless series of hearings, the House International
Relations Committee (HIRC) as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
(SFRC), abruptly decided last week to put an end to the hearings process.
The HIRC has scheduled June 27 for a "mark-up" - or fine-tuning
the text -- of a bipartisan legislation authored by its chairman Henry
Hyde and Ranking member Tom Lantos. The next day, SFRC would mark-up
a bill authored by its Chairman Richard Lugar and Ranking Democrat Jospeh
Biden.
3. The Bush administration
and its co-opted allies have been engaged in an all-out, multi-pronged
effort to bring about this "abrupt" shift in the two committees:
(i) In the last week of
May, the American Jewish Committee came out with its full weight behind
the nuclear deal. A letter signed by E. Robert Goodkind, president,
and David A. Harris, executive director of the AJC, and sent to all
the Senators and Representatives stated: "After almost 50 years
of misunderstanding, India and the United States are on a path of rapidly
increasing cooperation that includes counter-terrorism and regional
security efforts, and touches on many sectors - political, commercial,
scientific and educational".
(ii) Ashley Tellis, a senior
associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who was
co-opted by the Bush administration to assist Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns during the round of negotiations
with India, had already appeared before the HIRC back in November 2005
when he presented a ten-point "Certificate of good Conduct"
to India. A self-proclaimed "card-carrying member" supporting
the Bush nuclear-deal agenda, Tellis appeared again at HIRC on May 11
and warned the lawmakers that "any legislative 'improvements' to
the current proposal would kill the deal". And, should the agreement
fail because of the lack of Congressional approval, it would "do
grave, perhaps lasting, damage to the on-going transformations in the
US-India relations, US regional policy in South Asia, and US efforts
to successfully manage a resurgent Asia".
(iii) Then came the deployment
of what has been dubbed as "the most potent weapon" in Mr.
Bush's armory: Nobel Laureate Mohammed El Baradei, Director-General
of International Atomic Energy Agency. After meeting with Condoleezza
Rice on May 24, El Baradei appealed to the US lawmakers in both the
House and the Senate and declared the India-US nuclear deal "a
step forward", a "win-win agreement".
(iv) Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice herself stepped in, working overtime and in overdrive. She has
been busy phoning members of the two committees and other influential
lawmakers for the last several weeks. In addition, senior officials
from the State Department and the National Security Council, as well
as Under Secretary of State for Political affairs Nicholas Burns are
reported to have "continued to pound the corridors of Congress
in both the House and the Senate meeting with lawmakers", persuading
and winning over.
(v) Hooked to the notion
of "India, the Big Power" and believing that the US-India
nuclear deal was crucial for the well-being of the home country, a large
number of rich and resourceful Indo-Americans came out in full force,
under the banners of outfits like US-India Friendship Council. Campaigns
like "DC Chalo" (Let's go to DC) were organized. Special banquets
were held at the Capitol Hill. Fund-raisers were organized for individual
politicians, as for example for Congressman Sherrod Brown of Ohio who
was holding out but ended up supporting the Bush agenda. By June 18,
Ashok Mago of Dallas Texas claimed to have "delivered 16 of the
co-sponsors" and expected "to add another five-seven Congressmen
in the next few weeks." A very telling case is of Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas Democrat) who was initially a co-sponsor of
(Massachusetts Democrat) Ed Markey's anti-nuke resolution but switched
sides to co-sponsor HR 4974 - the pro-Nuke-deal resolution. Ashok Mago
claimed that the Indian American community in Texas "had also delivered
both Senators from the state as co-sponsors of the administration bill
in the Senate". Such mobilzational efforts by Indo-Americans were
carried out in many parts of the USA.
(vi) Finally, rather importantly,
there was the induction of the big-league corporate world. US-India
Business Council president Ron Somers retained what is known to be the
most expensive lobbying firm in the US Capital, Patton Boggs; engaged
exclusively to push for the approval of the nuclear deal in Congress.
The firm lined up meetings for the Chairman and CEO of Gen. Electrics,
Jeffrey Immelt with the key lawmakers; as well as for the CEOs of firms
like Boeing, Ford Motor Company, Federal Express, American International
Group, Lockheed Martin, and many more. According to Somers, these lobbying
sessions were choreographed strategically by Patton Boggs "as to
who will be the most effective spokespeople at these meetings".
For example, "when it comes time for a meeting with (SFRC Chairman)
Senator Lugar's people, of course it helps to have ITT industry - because
they are the largest employer in Indiana, etc." Aerospace Industries
Association also came forward with its own baggage of pressures. All
this eventually paid off. The two important Committees of the US Congress
have given up all opposition to the proposed deal with India.
To sum up, here is a quote
from a senior (Bush) administration official: "The double-team
approach of industry and the Indian American community has been very
effective, and while sending a letter is good as our planting op-eds
in leading newspapers, S the best results have come from real investors
in India and Indian Americans going up to Capitol Hill, sitting down
with the leadership and explaining to lawmakers how important this deal
is - that it is much bigger than simply the sale of nuclear reactors
to India, but the very core of the strategic relations between the US
and India."
(postscript: The two Congressional
Committees have already passed their resolutions on the assigned dates,
as was predicted.)
4. The next task is to move
the proposed legislation to floor action by the full House and Senate
during July. The passage through the two chambers cannot be taken for
granted. Not only are there likely to be significant differences between
the draft legislations in the two chambers, several issues still remained
unresolved, as we will see. It is very probable that the US Congress
would accept the advice given by the Council on Foreign Relations, in
a 27-page report authored by Michael a. Levi and Charles D. Ferguson,
both Council Fellows for science and technology. This recently released
report titled 'US-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Strategy for Moving Forward'
suggests a "two-stage compromise approach in order to envisage
the legislation's passage". "Congress should formally endorse
the deal's basic framework while delaying final approval until it is
assured that critical non-proliferation needs are met". Congress
might do just that.
The Issue(s)
5. The proposed Bush legislation
aims to amend Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, in order
for the US to make a one-time exception for India in the existing global
non-proliferation regime so that India can keep its nuclear weapons
without signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
6. In precise terms, if approved,
the "123 Agreement" would allow the US to lift its own ban
in supplying India with nuclear fuel, technology as well as Reactors,
a ban that has been in place for more than 30 years (caused by India's
first nuclear explosion in 1974). India is expected to separate its
civilian nuclear facilities from the military ones, and subject the
civilian facilities to a new protocol of safeguards agreement between
India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
7. India has already identified
14 of its 22 nuclear facilities (existing or in the process of being
built) as civilian. That means that the remaining eight facilities could
be used to produce essential fuels for nuclear bombs; even more easily
since the need for nuclear fuel for the civilian facilities would be
henceforth met by the US and, hopefully, other suppliers. The proposed
agreement is a tacit acceptance of India as a Nuclear power, as well
as a recognition that there was nothing that the US or anyone else could
do to prevent India from making more bombs.
8. There are still unresolved
and contentious issues, not only for some of the worried US lawmakers,
but - given the far-reaching implications - for the global community
as well.
(a) What will remain of the
already limping Non-Proliferation Treaty, if this deal goes through?
Also, even if India is allowed to keep its bombs, and even make more
of them, how could one ensure that it would not carry out further nuclear
tests? India is refusing to oblige, as it wants to be treated as one
of the other Nuclear powers, and is committing only voluntary moratorium.
Furthermore, can India be expected to sign, besides the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the newly proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty
(FMCT)?
(b) Then there are further
hurdles and uncertainties, even if the Bill went through the US Congress.
What kind of special agreement India will make with IAEA for safeguards
inspections? Would this be in public domain, or kept secret? Given the
fact that the Bush Administration has refused to share the draft nuclear
cooperation agreement with even the Congress, there is reason for considerable
suspicion and anxiety.
(c) A big hurdle would be
an agreement with the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on the
procedures of treating India as an exceptional case, for the purposes
of nuclear commerce. Would the US-India nuclear cooperation deal have
any international legitimacy without the agreement acceptable to NSG?
9. There is yet another set
of issues thrown up by this nuclear cooperation deal which I cannot
go into here because of time and space constraints: for example, India's
past, rather dismal, fifty-years record of producing civilian nuclear
power; the question whether nuclear energy is safer, cleaner, cheaper
and sustainable; the risks nuclear power has for the environment and
for people's health, especially given the shocking reports on what has
been happening around the only uranium mining operation in India (Jaduguda
in Orissa), or in the promixity of the 1998 underground tests in Pokhram;
the massive misuse of scarce resources toward nuclearization and militarization,
and the consequent arms race in the sub-continent, etc. Some of these
issues were dealt with in a special volume edited by myself and my esteemed
colleague Dr. Hassan Gardezi, who spoke at this morning's plenary. ("The
South Asia Bomb: Reality and Illusion", Bulletin of Concerned Asian
Scholars, Vol. 31, No. 2, April-June 1999)
The Larger Picture:
10. This 2005 George Bush's
offer of a special nuclear cooperation deal didn't just spring up from
no-where. For the past several years, India has been gradually but steadily
moving to embrace USA and its strategic and foreign policy orientations.
Here is some sample:
(a) Even before the 9/11
event of 2001, India had already endorsed the new strategic framework
and the National Missile Defense program unveiled by George Bush in
May 2001, even as formal American allies withheld their support.
(b) Within 3 days after the
9/11 attach on the WTC in NY and Pentagon, India came forward with full
support to US's "anti-terrorism" campaign, and made an unprecedented
offer of three air bases in addition to unspecified port facilities
for the attack on Afghanistan.
(c) India expressed no opposition
whatsoever to America's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, despite
the widespread condemnation of the US action, internationally and even
within the US.
(d) India endorsed the US
position on environmental protection and global climate change in the
face of strident global opposition.
(e) India assisted the US
initiative to remove Jose Mauricio Bustani, Director-General of the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons despite strong
third world opposition in
the United Nations.
(f) Indian Navy protected
(on the suggestion of the Americans) high-value US cargoes transiting
the Straits of Malacca during the early phase of the war on Afghansitan,
despite the absence of India's traditional requirement of a covering
UN mandate. This joint patrol program continued for six months.(g) India
refused to join the international chorus of opposition to the US-led
coalition campaign against Iraq, ignoring repeated pleas from other
major powers and third world states to that effect. In fact it came
very close to providing an Indian army division for post-war stabilization
operations in Iraq, despite widespread national opposition to the US-led
war.
(h) India became increasingly
allied with Israel, abandoning its decades old commitment to the cause
of Palestinian and other Arab people and nations. The process has been
slowly in the making for quite some time, going back to the days of
Rajiv Gandhi prime-ministership during the 80's, culminating in the
establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1992. But it escalated
during the Hindutava regime (the Vajpayee government) of 1998-2004.
During the India-Pakistan Kargil war of 1999 in Kashmir, Israel supplied
India, at a 24-hour notice, with high altitude surveillance vehicles
and laser guided systems. The alliance further deepened after the 9/11
episode of 2001. Ariel Sharon arrived in India as an honoured guest
in 2003 to
strengthen "Tel Aviv-New Delhi-Washington" axis, which India's
Security Adviser of the day, Brajesh Mishra, was pleading for at his
speech to the American Jewish Congress a few months earlier. The change
of government in India from BJP to Congress has not changed anything.
Today India is the biggest purchaser of high-tech Israeli weapons, and
is the destination for almost half of Israel's arms exports. Israel
has also been training thousands of Indian soldiers in "anti-insurgency".
11. It is in the context
of all this that one has to view the emerging "strategic partnership'
between India and the USA. Already in 2001, immediately after India's
unconditional support to the US "war on terror" and the instant
lifting of the sanctions the US government had imposed after the 1998
nuclear tests, a "strategic partnership" document was adopted;
which was followed in February 2004 with the "Next Step in Strategic
Partnership" (NSSP). Inescapably bogged down with wars of aggression
in Afghanistan and Iraq while obsessed with a search for more "enemies"
in some kind of an "Axis of Evil", stretched too far militarily,
and mired into an economic quagmire with dollar-hooked economies, especially
the oil and gas-rich ones, moving one by one into the Euro orbit, George
Bush and his neo-con administration has been desperately looking for
new, dependable and, hopefully, dependent allies to uphold the senior
Bush's "new world order". India appeared to be an easy and
willing catch.
12. Three important publications
highlight the unfolding US agenda, vis-à-vis India. The first
is the 2003 classified report commissioned by the US Department of Defense
called "Indo-US Military Relations: Expectations and Perceptions",
authored by Juli A. MacDonald (an associate at Booz Allen Hamilton).
The second is a compilation of chapters on a rather comprehensive list
of topics, published in 2004 by the US Embassy in India, People, Progress
and Partnership: The
Transformation of US-India Relations, with a foreword by the then out-going
Secretary of State Colin Powel, who echoed Prime Minister Vajpayee in
calling India and the USA "natural allies". And, finally,
there is Stephen Blank's 207-page monograph, "Natural Allies? Regional
Security in Asia and Prospects for Indo-American Strategic Cooperation",
published in September 2005 by the Strategic Studies Institute, US Army
War College. All three are important in identifying the thrust of American
interests in roping India into its imperialist designs. A special note
needs to be made of the classified 153-page Pentagon report prepared
by Juli MacDonald. Commissioned by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
and based on 82 interviews with military, security and government officers
in India and the USA, the report's intention was to identify the
impediments that exist in forging a closer Indo-US relationship. This
classified document was strategically leaked. The first installment
in March 2003 to Jane's Foreign Report was clearly aimed to drive a
wedge between India and China. India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
had just returned from a weeklong visit to China where several agreements
were signed between the two countries. Jane's Report quoted the Pentagon
document saying that the US and India were forging long-term defense
and security alliances aimed at containing China, a country
both saw as an emerging regional and global power. "China represents
the most significant threat to both countries' security in the future
as an economic and military competitor." But driving a wedge between
India and China was only a part of the scheme. The Report highlighted,
among many other things, the desire of US military people having access
to Indian bases and military infrastructure, while the US Air Force
specifically desiring the establishment of airbases in India. "American
military officers are candid in their plans to eventually seek access
to Indian bases and military infrastructure. India's strategic location
in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled Sea Lanes of
Communication linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes India particularly
attractive to the US military", the report stated.
13. The groundwork was well
laid out. A few weeks before George Bush and Manmohan Singh inked the
July 2005 Nuclear Cooperation Deal in Washington, a 10-year Framework
Defense-Agreement was signed. Building upon the earlier defense cooperation
agreement of 1995, the new Agreement took India deeper into the US strategic
designs. Talking of "the vital importance of political and economic
freedom, democratic institutions, the rule of law, security, opportunity
around the world", its goals included "defeating terrorism
and violent religious extremism", and providing for collaboration
in "multinational operations when it is in their common interests".
With no reference to international bodies like the United Nations, the
Agreement opened the way for Indian participation in American-led military
operations. Although Admiral Gary Roughead,
Commander of America's Pacific Fleet, denied it in an interview when
he was recently in India, the Defense Agreement also envisaged joint
patrolling of important sea-lanes such as the Malacca Straits. In any
case, military-to-military co-operations have increased many-fold: growing
frequency of bilateral exercises, seminars, personnel exchanges as well
as sales of military technology. The military exercises have become
increasingly more sophisticated and advanced. For example, the September
2005 Malabar exercise (just south of the Goa beaches), involving US
aircraft carrier Nimitz and India's Virat collaborated on everything
from a joint diving salvage operation to a 24-hour "war at sea"
scenario. As Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat (former Chief of Naval Staff - India)
has pointed out, another "key element of the engagement process
is the enlarged International Military Education and Training' program
which has a questionable record and history in the role that some of
the US trained and sponsored officers subsequently played in overturning
democratically elected governments, replacing them with military juntas
or in allying with civil servants who subtly further US interests in
their home countries."
14. "Our goal is to
help India become a major world power in the 21st century", explained
a senior US official. The agreement's purpose was made clear when former
US ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, asked, "Why should the
US want to check India's missile capability in ways that could lead
to China's permanent nuclear dominance over democratic India?"
It is very doubtful if the real concern was dominance over India.
A Carrot and a Rod:
15. Despite all these developments
the nuclear cooperation deal inked in July 2005 was not a done deal.
It was more like a carrot, temptingly hanging in front of the eager
faces of the Indian government establishment. Again and again, the carrot
would be replaced by a rod, and used to extract one thing or the other.
The goal was to use the promise of the nuclear cooperation deal to shape
India's foreign policy, and to subject it to the US strategic interests.
American Ambassador to India, David Mulford, and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice brandished the rod many times, blatantly and arrogantly:
if you want the nuclear cooperation deal, do this, or do that; otherwise
no deal for you. Unbelievable as it may sound, such invariably was the
tone.
16. The first casualty was
Natwar Singh, India's Minister for External Affairs. He was firmly against
the US sanctions against Iraq, and the war on Iraq. He was cultivating
warm and friendly relations with the Iranian regime, as well as with
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), whose members included
China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan (India
having an Observer status); an organization viewed by the US with suspicion
and hostility. He was also opposed to Indian military or police participation
in the so-called stabilization of Iraq. Natwar Singh had to go. America's
favorite game of "regime change" can be played in bits and
pieces too. Very conveniently there came the "Independent Inquiry
Commission", headed by the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve,
Paul Volcker, investigating corruption and kickbacks in the "Oil
for Food" program during the sanctions against Iraq. Natwar Singh's
name showed up in one of the tables. Many informed commentators questioned
the validity of the
Volcker findings. But the pro-US lobby and media in India kicked up
a hysteria. Within a matter of days (not even weeks) Natwar Singh was
relieved from his ministerial position. It is important to point out
that the Volcker report named more than 2,400 companies from 66 countries
who were alleged to have paid "kickbacks" to Saddam Hussain's
regime. Neither the companies nor the countries named seemed to be too
charged by it. Politicians from Russia, France, Britain, Malaysia, Italy,
Indonesia and South Africa were named in the report, but the only politician
who lost his job, disgracefully and promptly, was Natwar Singh.
17. The next to go was Mani
Shankar Aiyar, the Minister in charge of Petroleum, Oil and Natural
Gas portfolios. He was vigorously pursuing the project of Iran-Pakistan-India
gas pipeline, as well as promoting trans-Asia energy cooperation, including
a gas-and-oil grid stretching Turkey to Japan. He had also recently
concluded a historic agreement with China on a joint bid for energy
assets in third countries. Ms. Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of
State, had no qualms showing her public opposition to all this. The
US Ambassador David Mulford, taking a clue and acting like a Viceroy
in a formal colonial situation, openly, arrogantly and blatantly conveyed
his dislike. If India had some self-respect, or even a modicum of concern
for the country's sovereignty, the Ambassador should have been hauled
on burning coals, made to apologize, and even asked to be withdrawn.
But nothing of that sort was to come. Within four days of Mulford's
humiliating public interference in India's internal affairs, on January
29, 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reshuffled his cabinet. Mani
Shankar Aiyar was given the glamourous ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports, and one of the most pro-US, pro-big-business politicians, Murli
Deora, took charge of the energy needs of India. Another piecemeal "regime-change"
took place. Speaking two days later at the Defense Expo-2006 in New
Delhi, Ambassador Mulford declared that Washington and New Delhi had
entered a new era of relationship and defense cooperation, which would
help improve regional and global security and stability.
18. The ultimately decisive
test was to separate India from Iran, on the latter's rights - under
the NPT regime - to carry out nuclear research for civilian purposes.
Even though formal motions were underway on the Iran gas pipeline, with
regular meetings between India, Pakistan and Iran, and although Iran
had warned India that its negative vote in Vienna would completely disrupt
the proposed project, India did just that. At the time of the February
4 crucial vote at IAEA, India abandoned its earlier ambiguity and came
out clearly to support the US agenda on Iran.
19. Mr. George Bush could
not think of a better place on earth to make a state visit last March.
It didn't mater if some unhappy politicians might embarrass him in case
he spoke in Parliament. No matter if millions of people were marching
on the streets of India, burning his effigy. Mr. Manmohan Singh's state
took care of insulating him from all that. And with 5000-plus American
security people who came with him he didn't have to worry about personal
security matters either.
Still Larger a Picture:
20. The political, diplomatic,
and even military "strategic partnership", though significantly
important in the current situation, do not still provide the whole picture.
In the ultimate analysis, it is the subordination of India's economy,
the muscular and brainy power of its workers, its natural resources,
its markets, which amounts to the centrality of imperialism's hegemonic
drive.
21. India is obliging in
every possible way. It has opened up practically every sector of its
economy to imperialist capital. Hardly anything is left as a sacred
cow. While the Indian big capital is benefiting a lot, as well as the
growing professional class, the conditions of life for the vast majority
of the people have deteriorated immensely in the last decade or so;
and they are going to be even worse given the many agreements the US
has wrung out of India in the last one year alone. The list is big,
and it would require another effort to assess the full significance
of it all.
22. The list is indeed big
and formidable, and even though a full assessment of implications may
not be possible now, it needs to be shared. I will let the Ambassador
do the talking. After seeing Ministers Natwar Singh and Mani Shankar
Aiyar out, after successfully forcing the Manmohan Singh government
on its knees on the Iran vote, and after seeing the beaming George Bush
in and out of India, the international investment banker turned diplomat,
Ambassador David Mulford, came for a home visit. It was like a victorious
warrior coming home. He gave a speech on April 24, "The Promise
of India", at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.
The purpose unmistakably was to impress the American legislators to
hurry and pass the nuclear cooperation deal, "the cornerstone",
as he called it, for India-US "strategic partnership". The
many gains achieved in the past one year (precisely, since the initial
signing of the deal in July 2005), as mentioned by the Ambassador in
his speech, are:
- "The long-festering
Dabhol project has been resolved." (This is the famous Enron power-project-rip-off
case in Maharashtra, later acquired by General Electrics, which has
been lying in a limbo for a while. The Indian government has not only
met every demand of the General Electrics but has also seemingly assured
that all foreign direct investments in India will remain safe.)
- Under the same safeguards,
"several troubled independent power projects in Tamil Nadu have
been sorted out."
- "A comprehensive open
skies agreement negotiated in a few months has jump-started the aviation
sector. Since then, Boeing has sold almost $15 billion in new aircraft
to India. Two US airlines have opened direct routes to India."
- "Airport privatization
is underway."
- "India amended its
Patent Act to recognize product patents and bring its IPR regime into
conformity with TRIPS, and we are working to build new IPR programs
and to assure enforcement of standards." (Recall all those drawn-out
struggles around basmati rice, tumeric, neem tree, etc.)
- "A new umbrella agreement
has been signed that is supporting India's emerging natural gas, air
transport, infrastructure, and pharmaceutical markets."
- After resolving the past
differences, "we have also constructed a new economic architecture
to transform our strategic partnership into a comprehensive relationship.
This new architecture includes a US-India Energy Dialogue, an Information
Communications Technology (ICT) Working Group, a Trade Policy Forum
(TPF), a Standards Dialogue, anda restructured US-India Economic Dialogue/High
Technology Working Group (HTCG)."
- "A key driver has
been a very innovative CEO Forum which has brought to table 20 top Indian
US CEOs representing over a trillion dollars of capital, that has clearly
enunciated the policy and reform actions necessary to dramatically increase
our bilateral trade and investment flows."
- "The Knowledge Initiative
on Agriculture has been launched with a three-year financial commitment
to link our universities, technical institutions, and businesses to
support agriculture innovation." (It is interesting to note that
Wal-Mart and Monsanto are among those representing the US side on the
Board.)
- "In the areas of Innovation
and the Knowledge Economy, we have established a Bi-National Science
and Technology Commission to assure fast tract diffusion of commercial
technologies."
- "The new Information
and Communications Technology Working Group has established an institutional
channel to resolve market access and regulatory issues."
- "Under the High Technology
Cooperation Group, India has put in place new export control legislation,
to streamline our high technology and defense linkages."
- "Under the New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship
signed on June 28, 2005 (see point #13 above) we have built a compelling
case for defense co-production and industrial participation projects
in India and have established a new defense procurement and production
group. The US is now a contender for an eight billion dollar combat
aircraft tender and other military platforms."
Very well done, Mr. Ambassador!
It is indeed quite an achievement in less than one year. As an Investment
Banker you had identified, in the same speech, one principle of investment
banking that you said applies importantly to international relations:
the principle of "know your client". "This means",
you said, "master your client's current situation, know his past
and above all understand his future." Corporate America and the
imperialist system must be very grateful to you for delivering to them
the "client" state of India.
23. Each one of these "joint
initiatives", brought about (at least hugely influenced) by the
"dangling carrot" of the nuclear deal, signifies a deeper
penetration of imperialism in Indian polity and economy. Together they
amount to a lot. But they only crown the process, which has been underway
for a while. As was pointed out before, practically every sector of
the economy has been opened up for the imperialist capital over the
last ten-fifteen years. Two emaciated cows, however, were still a bit
sacred: one was the agriculture sector, and the other retail market.
US corporate bodies, and their spokespeople in the US embassy, have
been doing everything possible to get access to them too. The doors
have begun to crack open. The fact that Monsanto and Wal-Mart are now
on the US side of the Board of the newly created "Knowledge Initiative
on Agriculture" is clearly indicative of things to come. With its
terminator and other genetically modified (GM) seeds, Monsanto has had
its operations in India for many years. The Bt Cotton seeds (seeds modified
with a doze of a naturally occurring poison, called Bacillus thuringiensis)
aggressively pushed by Monsanto have already caused enormous damage
to soil, and because of massive prices charged, to farmers' economy
and lives. Thousands of cattle died in an area of Andhra Pradesh a few
months ago, by feeding on the straw and leaves in the fields after the
harvest of cotton. Over a hundred thousand farmers have already committed
suicide because of the economic devastation caused by the GM seeds and
other structural adjustments. And currently experiments are being launched
to try out Bt-brinjals (egg plants) and other vegetable and fruit crops.
India, which had already acquired self-sufficiency in basic cereals
(in fact over-abundance), ended up importing 3.5 million metric tones
of wheat from Australia this year, and at a price above the international
market rate. Whether it was done to deal with a real, or an artificially
created, shortage of food-grains is something experts in India are still
debating.
24. As for the Retail markets,
Wal-Mart may have to sit it out for a while before opening its big-box
stores in India. If and when that happens, it is not difficult to imagine
what would begin to happen to the 40 million people and 11 million outlets
in India's retail sector (small shop and stall keepers, vendors and
hawkers, etc.). As a step in the direction, on January 24 this year
the government took a decision to allow up to 51 percent foreign direct
investment in retail stores, but this applies only to "single brand"
retailers (like Nike, Levi, Nokia, Louis Vuitton, Rolls-Royce, etc.).
In the meantime, Wal-Mart, as one of the biggest food retailers in the
world and especially in "partnership" with the giant Monsanto
Seed Corporation, has much to gain by being on a body like "Knowledge
Initiative on Agriculture". It is significant to point out that
under this "Initiative" US private capital will have full
access to the research facilities of Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR) and will be very much in a position to influence its
agenda. It becomes all the more ominous given the fact that the Indian
government's department of biotechnology is pouring colossal sums of
money into ICAR research efforts.
25. As all this happens,
a piece of India is indeed "shining", with glamour and glitter;
in fact, quite smug in the new world of opportunities, new levels of
self-confidence. This piece of India does not care what happens to the
workers who fight for better working conditions and get beaten up by
cops. Or, to the poor peasants and tribal communities whose land is
grabbed by big capital backed by multi-nationals for mining, for super
highways, or other mega projects, and who too get shot by cops if they
protest. Or, to the ordinary people whose legitimate entitlements are
taken away to appease World Bank, IMF and other such bodies. It is this
"piece of India" which is not even bothered by the fact that
India, by linking up with the USA, is in fact becoming a junior partner
of the greatest robber of the world, who does not recognize any international
law, any multi-lateral body, and who has a blood-soaked history of making
"strategic partnerships" with numerous countries only to be
abandoned when they became a liability or an hindrance. This piece of
India is totally oblivious to the system of imperialism. But then they
are a part of it, either as integral to the big capital based in the
US or elsewhere, or as its functionaries and compradors, all too eager
to bite on the carrot of the nuclear deal hanging in front of their
faces.
26. The most tragicomical
aspect of the whole story is that this piece of India actually thinks
and behaves as if it is India. But there is the big India, the vast
multitude of toiling, hard-working masses - in mines, forests, fields
and factories, across the length and breadth of the country; as well
as the small producers, traders, shopkeepers, low-end salaried people,
etc. They are toiling and suffering, but they are also engaged in a
variety of resistance struggles. To talk about that would require a
different chronicle.
Hari P. Sharma, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Sociology,
Simon Fraser Universityand President, SANSAD (South Asian Network for
Secularism and Democracy)