|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << October26, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Nepal,Bunker buster,Gujarat,NRK etc |
October29, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Saturday digest >> |
|
[1] From: "Arif N. Khan" <ank2000pk@yahoo.com> Date: Fri Oct 28, 2005 Subject: Sword of Damocles "Today, the world is facing disasters on an unprecedented scale: more than 255 million people were affected by natural disasters globally each year, on a verage, between 1994 and 2003, with a range of 68 million to 618 million," The researchers at the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at Belgium's l'Universit?© catholique de Louvain disclosed. . According to their research, an average of 188 million people a year were affected by disasters between 1990 and 1999. Asia was affected by about 43 per cent of them and accounted for almost 70 per cent of all lives lost. There are other signs of this trend. The reinsurance company Munich Re, a member of the UN's Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction, studied great natural disasters between 1950 and 2000. It found that there were 20 such calamities between 1950 and 1959 costing $38-million (in 1998 U. S. dollars). But between 1990 and 1999, Munich Re found that the number of disasters had risen to 82 and that the economic losses had risen to $535-billion. As a philosopher said that perhaps catastrophe is the natural human environment, and even though we spend a good deal of energy trying to get away from it, we are programmed for survival amid catastrophe. However, the stabbing horror of life is not contained in calamities and disasters, because these things wake one up and people endure losses and start building again. But today, as John F. Kennedy former US President feared, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness. Arif N. Khan http://www.netvert.biz/fbo ---------------------------- [2] From: Venkat A <venkat_hpu@yahoo.com> Date: Fri Oct 28, 2005 Subject: ''In Pakistan, Awaiting a Meal; in India, Awaiting Relief'': Another disaster, same old story ''In Pakistan, Awaiting a Meal; in India, Awaiting Relief'': NY Times Another disaster, same old story TAVLEEN SINGH Read the entire story at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada ------------------------- [3] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com> Date: Thu Oct 27, 2005 Subject: US Congress Still Unenthusiastic About Indo-US Nuclear Deal [It had been pointed out earlier that the Indo-US nuclear deal, as sanctified by the Bush-Singh joint statement of July 18, needs to clear hurdles at three levels ??“ within India, within the US and within the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The following news item shows that the hurdle within the US ??“ endorsement by the Congress, remains to be cleared. The prospects are in fact fairly uncertain with the personal standing of Bush suffering setbacks in the wake of utter lack of visible success in Iraq. The withdrawal of Ms. Miers as the presidential nominee to the Supreme Court is perhaps a straw in the wind. Things may turn even more difficult in case the CIA leak probe indicts senior Bush/Cheney aides.] http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1530796,000500020009.htm US lawmakers for more "transparency" on nuke deal with India Press Trust of India Washington, October 27, 2005|13:12 IST American lawmakers have urged the Bush administration to be transparent on sharing information on the Indo-US nuclear deal even as experts have warned that the deal was against their country's interests. Claiming that Indian officials know more than US Congressmen about the deal, signed in July during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington, Republican Representative Henry Hyde said the Congress had received "little if any information" from the Government on this count. Hyde, who chairs the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, said during a hearing yesterday "as it stands, the situation is both strange and unusal in that the Indian authorities know more about this important proposal than we in the Congress." He rued that the Bush administration had neither shared with the Congress details of its ongoing negotiations with the Indian Government nor the legislation it planned to introduce to implement the deal. The House of Representatives and the Senate, he said, had written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, requesting that the Government begin urgent consulations on the deal with the Congress. Nuclear experts testified that the deal was fraught with danger and was against US interests. "The agreement could pose serious risks to the security of the United States," warned David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. At the State Department, spokesman Sean McCormack said he expects there will be intense consultations with India in coming months. Before any agreement can be presented to the US Congress, India needs to take several steps, including separating its civilian and military nuclear programme. "We are convinced that this is a good agreement for the United States and a good agreement for India and the world if India does take certain steps," he said. Rep Tom Lantos, the committee's senior Democrat agreed at the hearing yesterday that there was no hurry to reach a decision on the US-India deal, saying "approval and implementation...May take considerable time in both hemispheres." He also lauded the nuclear proposal, saying it would allow the US to supply India with nuclear fuel, technology and equipment in return for New Delhi's strengthening nuclear safeguards and allowing international inspections. "India has in effect agreed to an international commitment not to test again," he said, pointing out that such a precedent also could lead to a broader regional nuclear non-proliferation agreement, with Pakistan stopping nuclear testing. "This is a very important development." The landmark agreement on civil nuclear cooperation offered New Delhi comprehensive access to civilian nuclear technology in exchange for, among other things, voluntarily bringing its power reactors and other civilian nuclear facilities under safeguards. --------------------------- [4] From: yogi sikand <ysikand@yahoo.com> Date: Fri Oct 28, 2005 Subject: October 2005 issue of Qalandar [www.islaminterfaith.org] Dear Friend The October 2005 issue of our webmagazine Qalandar is now out and can be accessed on www.islaminterfaith.org Contents include: 1. Book Review: Zoya Hasan, & Ritu Menon, "Educating Muslim Girls: A Comparison of Five Cities". 2. "For India and Islam: Maulana Azad??™s Vision of Religious Pluralism" 3. "Islamist Militancy in Kashmir: The Case of the Lashkar-i Tayyeba" 4. "Madho Lal Hussain of Lahore: Beyond Hindu and Muslim" 5. "Modernising Madrasas: Winds of Change in Islamic Seminaries in India" 6. "Shariah Courts??™ Controversy in India: Countering The Ulema's Argument" 7. Interview: Sophia Khan of SAFAR (Social Action Forum Against Oppression), an NGO based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. 8. Interview: Sardar Muhmmad Abdul Qayyum Khan, former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-Administered Jammu and Kashmir) and Supreme Head of All J & K Muslim Conference. Regards Yoginder Sikand ----------------------------- [5] From: Sukla Sen <suklasen@yahoo.com Date: Fri Oct 28, 2005 Subject: India's Nuclear Obsession and Indo-Pak-US Triangle http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp? idnews=30776 India Abandons Global Nuclear Disarmament Analysis by Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI , Oct 26 (IPS) - Seven years after blasting its way into the world???‚¬?„?s 'nuclear club', India has executed a major shift in its policy stance by jettisoning its long-standing advocacy of global nuclear disarmament in favour of nuclear non-proliferation. On Monday, the country???‚¬?„?s Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran enunciated a new doctrinal orientation: India will now be ''part of'' a ''new global consensus on non-proliferation''. The new stance is in line with a far-reaching agreement on nuclear weapons and atomic power signed between India and the United States in July. From now on India will pay lip service, if even that, to the goal of fighting for universal nuclear weapons abolition and a nuclear weapons-free world. This unceremonious burial of the disarmament agenda comes less than 18 months after the Manmohan Singh government came to power pledging, in its principal programmatic document, to assume a 'leadership role' in the struggle for the complete global elimination of nuclear weapons. In his speech, Shyam Saran outlined India???‚¬?„?s emerging tough posture on Iran???‚¬?„?s nuclear programme, ahead of another possible vote at the coming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna a month from now. Last month, India shocked domestic opinion, Iran, and the Non-Aligned Movement by voting for a West-sponsored resolution accusing Iran of ''non-compliance'' with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA???‚¬?„?s statute, and thus preparing the ground for reporting it to United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions. An important element of Saran???‚¬?„?s speech was the naming of Pakistan as the supplier of Iran???‚¬?„?s clandestine nuclear programme and demanding an investigation into the role of AQ Khan, 'Father of the Pakistani Bomb' in Iran???‚¬?„?s imports. Until now, New Delhi had maintained a discreet silence or a low-key approach on the sensational disclosures of Khan???‚¬?„?s shady nuclear deals. Since January, last year, India has also been carrying out a series of ''composite dialogues'' aimed at restoring normal relations with its nuclear-armed rival and neighbour, Pakistan. ''We are clearly seeing in all this the unfolding of the real significance of the India-U. S. nuclear deal of July'', says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, professor at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. ''The deal makes a special, unprecedented, one-time exception for India in the global rules governing civilian nuclear commerce by declaring India a ???‚¬??responsible???‚¬?„? nuclear state and admitting it into the small monopolistic cartel called the Nuclear Club,'' Chenoy told IPS. But the deal faces a tough ratification process in the U. S. Congress and in the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers???‚¬?„? Group. India???‚¬?„?s chanting of the non-proliferation mantra, which Indian pro-Bomb analysts until recently equated with a form of religious nuclear fanaticism, is designed to facilitate Congressional ratification. ''India is paying the price for the deal with the US by sacrificing its own policy independence and its long-standing role as an apostle of peace and nuclear disarmament'', said Chenoy. It is plain from recent Congressional hearings that the U. S. will make the deal???‚¬?„?s implementation conditional upon India???‚¬?„?s good or 'responsible' behaviour in collaborating with the U. S. in isolating Iran. Leading Congressmen have warned India that it must choose between ''the Iran of the Ayotollahs'', with its oil and gas, and the ''democratic West'', with its advanced nuclear power technology. India has been negotiating a major agreement with Iran for a gas pipeline through Pakistan, which will give it assured long-term supplies of the fuel at a low price but the U. S. has publicly opposed the deal. After the Indian vote at Vienna, the pipeline seemed to be in jeopardy. After Saran???‚¬?„?s statement, it may well be dead in the water. Saran signalled that India has gone beyond demanding greater transparency and details about Iran???‚¬?„?s past nuclear activities, including its crude and primitive efforts to enrich uranium (which can potentially be used both to generate electricity and make weapons). India now says it won???‚¬?„?t ''accept as legitimate the pursuit of clandestine activities in respect to WMD-related techniques''. This blanket term covers an entire range of activities, including uranium enrichment and research reactors. Most of these are amenable to dual uses. India???‚¬?„?s shift away from the nuclear disarmament agenda to an exclusive preoccupation with non-proliferation is reflected in Saran???‚¬?„?s speech. The phrase ''global nuclear disarmament'' does not occur even once in the text. But ''non-proliferation'' occurs 25 times. This shift is not about language alone. It signifies that India has abandoned the pursuit of abolition of nuclear weapons from all countries. It only wants to prevent new states from acquiring such weapons. Those which have them, including itself, can keep them. To do this, India advocates ''global norms that go beyond the NPT''. This too is in keeping with US priorities. Since September 11, 2001, Washington has refused all proposals for limiting, leave alone disarming, its nuclear weapons. It strongly signalled its opposition to nuclear disarmament at a review conference of the NPT this past May. But at the same time, the US has redoubled its efforts at preventing proliferation through aggressive measures like intercepting suspect shipments on the high seas. India is moving towards support for such measures too. ''This will be seen as India???‚¬?„?s betrayal of its own past traditions as a peace campaigner and leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, and its own independent foreign policy'', says Aijaz Ahmad, a distinguished professor of South Asian Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia university in the capital. ''There will be sharp divisions and no domestic consensus whatever on this disastrous policy shift''. India???‚¬?„?s new turn on the AQ Khan issue is directed as much at the U. S. as at Pakistan. It wants to highlight the proliferation potential in its neighbourhood to indicate that it will play a leading, pro-active role in preventing the possible spread of nuclear weapons. This is designed to please Washington although it is doubtful that it will lead to much investigation into Khan???‚¬?„?s activities, given Washington's dependence on Pakistan for the 'war on terror'. India???‚¬?„?s new position as enunciated by Saran is that clandestine nuclear operations must be scrutinised from both the demand and supply ends. ''We see no reason why there should be an insistence on personal interviews with Iranian scientists but an exception granted to a man who has been accused of running a global ???‚¬??nuclear Wal-Mart???‚¬?„?.'' This refers to Khan, who is believed to have supplied components of uranium enrichment centrifuges to Iran. Such rhetoric may embitter India-Pakistan relations. Already, the composite dialogue process has entered stagnation. The two failed to cooperate in rescue and relief operations across the Line of Control in divided Kashmir after the terrible earthquake there two weeks ago. By moving into the U. S. orbit, and embracing non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament, India may end up sacrificing its interests in peace and cooperation in the immediate neighbourhood. (END/2005) -------------------------------------------- HAPPY DIWALI TO ALL THINKERS Let the light shine on the nation. the.moderator India Thinkers Net |
|
| << October26, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net]Nepal,Bunker buster,Gujarat,NRK etc |
October29, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Saturday digest >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |