|
CONTENTS
OF THIS SECTION
Last updated
20/11/07 |
| [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.
|
|
