CONTENTS
OF THIS SECTION
Last updated
20/09/07 | | [Comment by tamilnation.org - Given the key roles played in the Struggle for Tamil Eelam, by India , the United States and now China (with supporting roles for the European Union, Japan and Pakistan) it is not without importance for the Tamil people to further their own understanding of the foreign policy objectives of these countries - this is more so because the record shows that states do not have permanent friends but have only permanent interests. And, it is these interests that they pursue, whether overtly or covertly. Furthermore, the interests of a state are a function of the interests of groups which wield power within that state and 'foreign policy is the external manifestation of domestic institutions, ideologies and other attributes of the polity'. In the end, the success of the struggle for Tamil Eelam will be a function of the capacity of the leadership of the struggle to mobilise its own people and its own resources at the broadest and deepest level - and this means, amongst other things, broadening and deepening the understanding of the Tamil people of the motivations of the international actors in relation to the struggle for Tamil Eelam. Otherwise we will continue to confuse our people by leading them to believe that all that needs to be done is to wake up the international community to the justice of our cause and all will be well. Unfortunately, the world is not rotating on the axis of human justice. Furthering our understanding of the strategic interests of the international community, will better equip us to engage in the real task of addressing those interests - and to show that the emergence of an independent Tamil Eelam will not pose a threat to many of the underlying interests of the parties concerned with the conflict in the island. On the contrary, it is the attempt to suppress the struggle of the Tamil people to be free from alien Sinhala rule which will pose a threat to the stability of the Indian Ocean region..." see also 1. From "China fear" to "China fever" - Pallavi Aiyar, Hindu, 27 February 2006; 2. China undertakes construction of Hambantota Port, 11 April 2005; 3. China, Sri Lanka Joint Communique , 3 September 2005 and 4. Sethusamudram Project ] |
| International Relations
in aN ASYMMETRIC Multi Lateral World US House of Representatives
allows export of civilian nuclear fuel to India BBC Report
9 December 2006 "Senior US state department official Nicholas Burns - who is visiting India - said he anticipated a very successful and supportive bill, well within the parameters of an agreement signed between India and the US" [see also 1. The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: The End Game Begins and
2. India's Project Seabird and the Indian Ocean's Balance of Power " On April 11, 2005, India started a strategic partnership with China, and, on June 29, 2005, signed a 10-year defense agreement with the United States. Western observers, however, have paid less attention to an ambitious Indian move in the military field: Project Seabird. This plan - with origins from the mid-1980s - is to be assessed in light of two geopolitical triangles juxtaposing on the Indian Ocean's background: U.S.-India-China relations and China-Pakistan-India relations. In this complicated geopolitical configuration, New Delhi is not simply a partner of China or the United States: India is emerging as a major power that follows its own grand strategy in order to enhance its power and interests." ]
Nuclear Power in India
 India has 14 reactors in commercial operation and nine under construction
Nuclear power supplies about 3% of India's electricity
By 2050, nuclear power is expected to provide 25% of the country's electricity
India has limited coal and uranium reserves
Its huge thorium reserves - about 25% of the world's total - are expected to fuel its nuclear power programme long-term Source: Uranium Information Center |
Energy-hungry India needs nuclear power The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of allowing the export of civilian nuclear fuel to India. The bill, passed by 330 votes to 59, must now be approved by the Senate, before it is sent to President George W Bush to be signed into law.
The deal offers India US nuclear technology in exchange for inspectors' access to Indian civilian reactors. The accord has been hailed as historic by some, but critics say it will damage non-proliferation efforts. "India is a state that should be at the very centre of our foreign policy and our attention," Democrat congressman Tom Lantos said.
He said a partnership with India could help regulate the peaceful and responsible spread of nuclear power. If the bill becomes law it will allow the export of civilian nuclear energy and technology to India for the first time in 30 years. The vote followed a landmark agreement last year between Mr Bush and the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, which overturned three decades of US anti-proliferation policy. Previously the US was opposed to Indian nuclear activities because it had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has twice tested nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998.
'Compromise bill'
The final bill was said to have been altered to take into account some Indian concerns about the deal, says the BBC's Shahzeb Jillani in Washington. Supporters of the bill, backed by the White House, are confident that the "compromise bill" will be acceptable to Delhi, he says.
Global nuclear powers
Earlier, senior US state department official Nicholas Burns - who is visiting India - said he anticipated "a very successful and supportive bill", well within the parameters of an agreement signed between India and the US. US President George W Bush finalised the agreement during a landmark trip to India in March. US Senate and House of Representatives committees backed the deal in June. Under the deal, energy-hungry India will get access to US civil nuclear technology and fuel, in return for opening its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection. But its nuclear weapons sites will remain off-limits. Critics of the deal say it could boost India's nuclear arsenal and sends the wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington opposes. India has made clear that the final agreement must not bind it to supporting the US policy on Iran and does not prevent it from developing its own fissile material. |
|
